|
|
|
|
It is only too well known that the present Constitution contains some draconian features. Even its chief architect, the late President J. R. Jayewardene admitted that some of the executive powers vested with the president needed revision. Unfortunately, this realisation dawned on him too late in the day after his retirement. When the executive presidency was introduced in 1978, the then SLFP-led Opposition vehemently opposed it claiming that it was a threat to democracy and vowed to scrap it immediately after capturing power. We have had two presidents from the SLFP since 1994 but the executive presidency is far from abolished! They have only paid lip service to the idea of introducing a new constitution.
A fresh attempt is being made to change the Constitution once again. It evokes in us a kind of d j vu. President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Opposition Leader have reportedly agreed in principle to the need for replacing the executive presidency with executive premiership. Talks between the UPFA and the UNF have begun on that basis, we are told. This is the correct approach. A prerequisite for making a robust basic law is a consensus among all stakeholders.
But, the question is whether President Rajapaksa and UNP leader Wickremesinghe are genuinely interested in abolishing the executive presidency. The former has reneged on his promise to do so and is now toying with the idea of securing a third term. As for the latter, it is a case of political sour grapes! Even former army chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka, who entered the last presidential race vowing to abolish the executive presidency in the event of his election, started humming a different tune towards the latter stages of his campaign perhaps on seeing large crowds at his propaganda rallies which, he thought, were a sure sign of his victory.
In 2000, it may be recalled, a joint effort to change the Constitution and create, inter alia, the post of executive PM collapsed owing to a tussle between President Chandrika Kumaratunga and the Opposition. The UNP accused her of having surreptitiously inserted some transitional provisions into the draft constitution in breach of her agreement with the Opposition.
President Kumaratunga was driven by her desire to remain in power after her second term but she lacked the required numbers in Parliament, where she lost a working majority the following year. Confident of turning the tables on her government, the UNP was not serious about backing her. The JVP was fishing in troubled waters to gain some political mileage. So, the failure of CBK`s constitutional project was a foregone conclusion. The UNP and the JVP shot down her draft constitution in Parliament.
This time around there is a difference though. President Rajapaksa needs only a handful of more seats to muster the required two-thirds majority in Parliament to change the Constitution and the UNP leader is troubled by a gnawing fear of losing some of his MPs to the government in the present parliament as well. What apparently prevents the President from going the whole hog to change the constitution according to his whims and fancies is his apprehension about the political fallout of such rash action as well as a pressing need to secure the Opposition`s support for the devolution model he has in mind. Therefore, he is wary of slapping a fait accompli on Parliament and providing the Opposition with a fresh rallying point.
The last thing that President Rajapaksa may want at a time he is battling a formidable external enemy is trouble on the political front. He has therefore chosen the safest way to change the constitution securing the Opposition`s support. He also cannot afford to ignore that fact that both the UNF and the DNA, in spite of their differences with his government, have taken exception to the appointment by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of an advisory committee which is widely believed to be a precursor to a war crimes probe. Thus, he must be feeling compelled to make some compromises such as agreeing to executive premiership to win over the UNF. The UNP has made a virtue of necessity by taking up the implementation of the 17th Amendment.
However, what we are witnessing is only the UPFA-UNF honeymoon and we do not want to prepare a horoscope for a baby not yet born! We remain highly sceptical about the on-going constitution making project but fully endorse the coming together of the government and the Opposition for that purpose. And we urge the two parties to extend their cooperation to other areas as well. Similarly, it needs to be stressed that as much as the Head of State should be answerable to Parliament, the onus is on the party leaders to arrest the rapid deterioration of the national legislature and make it answerable to the people.
|
|
|
AnuD
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 42777
Member Profile
|
 14 Jul 2010 03:27:46 GMT Report for Abuse
|
I don't agree with this analysis at all.
I think,there is something else behind it. JHU and JVP should look into this. Can you think, why UPFA got the help from UNF, particularly Ranil ?
MR say yes to this simply because he will be able to hang onto power.
That is what I think.
|
|
Search All News and Discussions
Share On Facebook
