DEBATE - 18TH AMENDMENT

" The democratic form of rule maintained its integrity in this country till about 1956. Until then elections and the formation of governments were all done strictly by the rules laid by the Constitution. The judiciary watched over the sanctity of the election process to a point where even the use of a State vehicle by a candidate from the ruling side was good enough for that candidate to be unseated on Election petitions. These petitions were regularly filed during post-election periods and the judgements in respected Courts meted out were accepted as fair and just."

by Luxman Arvind

(September 21, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The events in the past few years culminating in the passage of the 18th amendment – and prior to that the charade called the APRC, 17th amendment among others – have gone out to pose the basic question is the essence of Parliamentary democracy alive in Sri Lanka? From the time of Plato, the father of Republicanism - to the many refinements of people’s rule in the period that followed and more specifically the post-18th century in Europe have all contributed to the ideal democratic type of governance. This form of rule is now the norm globally – except for the few monarchies in a few smaller countries. There is a grotesque form of dynastic rule in societies like in North Korea and the Arab countries, who, nevertheless, claim they are democracies too. China calls herself a“Participatory democracy” in the absence of a formal and recognized opposition. Chances are China is likely to mature into a multi-party form of democracy when the present generation of the Chinese people - enjoying the fruits of an economically successful state – are likely to proceed towards a more re fined form of democracy than the system they have been accustomed to since Mao took over Mainland China.

The democratic form of rule maintained its integrity in this country till about 1956. Until then elections and the formation of governments were all done strictly by the rules laid by the Constitution. The judiciary watched over the sanctity of the election process to a point where even the use of a State vehicle by a candidate from the ruling side was good enough for that candidate to be unseated on Election petitions. These petitions were regularly filed during post-election periods and the judgements in respected Courts meted out were accepted as fair and just. Some of them were contested in lower courts but settled thereafter in the higher to the satisfaction of both sides. The system since then collapsed so badly now the ordinary man thinks it is normal for those in power to use almost any property of the State and its resources to be used in the winning of elections for those in power. Although there were allegations of major frauds in both the last Presidential and General elections – and objections duly filed in Courts – very little came out of them. The strange behavior of the Election Commissioner himself In these two elections speaks adequately of the depths of depravity the country is now identified with both within and outside the country.

When information leaked out that President JRJ was planning to change the Constitution to overcome the 2 term limit there was an understandable hue and cry. One of the most vociferous then was the present President Mahinda Rajapakse himself – and he was widely respected for his bold stand. Many of the JVPers and other leftists who then were breathing fire and brimstone against JRJ'sa alleged move are now meek partners in that matter of pushing through the 18th Amendment for ratification. The undue haste in which the highest court gave their assent recently is further proof of the decline of our system of governance. If it can be proved the Attorney General placed a different draft of the 18th Amendment before the Supreme Court while Parliament and the country were presented with a different one this will be further testimony to the levels we have fallen into. When the 18th was debated in Parliament M. A. Sumanthiran – the TNA M.P and highly sought after Lawyer pointed out various flaws in the presentation and contradictions in the Bill itself. The response for the government came from Nimal Siripala de Silva, said to be a junior lawyer totally out of range with Sumanthiran’s league. Minister de Silva was to argue everything is now in order “now that the Supreme Court has approved the Amendment “ One would have expected Minister de Silva to meet Sumanthiran’s argument point by point but as the history of the august house proves in the reams of Hansard records - if de Silva cared to study them. Unfortunately, that was not to be. The Government gave tuppence to the voice of Parliament and the opposition. Neither did they respect the objections of theOPA, the legal fraternity, the Christian clergy, Groups of academics, University Dons and many other sections of society that shared in the suspicion of the State's vulgar haste and called for a wider debate on the subject. The US Government took the unprecedented step of cautioning the adoption of the Bill and was to be met by vilification from the usual suspects in the government side. Whether right or wrong the 18th amendment is now part of the law of the land and the whole issue is now fait accompli.

The question now is if this government that claims to do almost everything in the name of the people and for their good, how will the lot of the man in the street improve after the passage of the 18th amendment – ultimately the final yardstick? Will the country see peace and reconciliation and a contented Tamil people in the North East? Is the passage of the Bill more important than engaging the punishing Cost of Living, Health, Education, Unemployment, the breaking down of the law and order situation, the increasing traffic of drugs in the country and other serious issues that cause deep worry to the people. Is strengthening the hands of one already powerful individual and weakening all other established limbs of good governance in the interest of the country at large? Why is the State afraid of allowing a reasonable time for public debate of this most crucial ill at the national level? If the answer to this is that Parliament has approved of it by a 2/3rd majority the people will be appalled because Parliament is now reduced to a set of crass and unprincipled opportunists who have forfeited the trust of their own electors.