|
|
Constitution making and the JVP
Tuesday, 20 July 2010 - 9:49 AM SL Time
 Share On Facebook
|
|
|
The government and the UNF seem to have evinced a keen interest in changing the Constitution. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has extended an invitation to all parties including those representing minority communities to take part in talks on constitution making. The formulation of a new constitution must be a consensual and inclusive process if its end product is to be workable and acceptable to one and all.
The JVP in spite of its much flaunted opposition to the executive presidency, for the abolition of which, it said, it backed Gen. Sarath Fonseka at the last presidential election, has chosen to remain noncommital. It has asked the government to show its hand first of all. It wants to see the government`s draft constitutional proposals before deciding whether to talk or not. Once bitten, it seems to be twice shy. Nay, it was bitten twice. Both President Chandrika Kumaratunga and President Rajapaksa took the JVP for a right royal ride by promising to scrap the executive presidency. In 1994, the then Prime Minister Kumaratunga got the JVP out of her way in the presidential race by agreeing to the abolition of that institution. In 2005, the then Prime Minister Rajapaksa secured the outfit`s support for his presidential bid by making the same promise. So, it is only natural that the JVP is treading cautiously.
However, that is not the only reason why the JVP has put forth the aforesaid condition. Having gone all out to destroy President Rajapaksa politically at the last presidential election, had a grand pratfall in the process and dragged Gen. Fonseka into a political morass as a result, it is wary of being seen to be cooperating with its bete noire (Mahinda) on anything. Therefore, it is looking for some excuses to avoid talks with his government on constitutional amendments.
If the government reveals at the very outset its draft constitutional proposals, which it seems to have already prepared on the sly, Rathu Sahodarayas will find fault with them and refuse to take part in discussions. They also do not want to make any commitment as regards a devolution model, which will be an integral part of the new constitution. For, they are planning as they did in 1987, when they took up arms against the 13th Amendment and in 2000, when they shot down President Kumaratunga`s devolution package in Parliament to gain a turbo boost for their political project sans any steam at present by campaigning against a devolution package to be offered. Thus, it does not want to have anything to do with talks on a new constitution.
What is the best way to set about drafting a new constitution? Is it for the government to prepare and lay on the table its draft proposals first and then consult other stakeholders? Or, is it for all stakeholders to get together and formulate a draft constitution collectively? We believe that the latter is better. This process however is bound to be fraught with disputes and gridlocks, but if we need a constitution acceptable to all stakeholders, it should be adopted. It demands a great deal of flexibility and willingness to make compromises on the part of all stakeholders and is sure to take a long time to reach fruition.
An alternative to this process may be, as the ruling party backers argue, for the government to slap a constitutional fait accompli on Parliament the way the previous constitutions were presented, secure a two-thirds majority by engineering crossovers and ensure its passage. This method may work in the short term for the government but, in the long term, we will be left with yet another flawed constitution.
|
|
|
rswkv
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1734
Member Profile
|
 20 Jul 2010 12:07:45 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Having gone all out to destroy President Rajapaksa politically at the last presidential election, had a grand pratfall in the process and dragged Gen. Fonseka into a political morass as a result, it is wary of being seen to be cooperating with its bete noire (Mahinda) on anything. Therefore, it is looking for some excuses to avoid talks with his government on constitutional amendments
Bla, Bla, Bla more B.S. from The Island..
JVP has made it clear, They do not want to replace mere the name executive presidency by executive Priminister. What they say is a premiership that is answerable to the parliment, Answerable to people.. not another form of dictator..
Simply says the person should be able brought to justice just like any other citizen of the country while holding power.. No Impunity.. |
DONP
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 592
Member Profile
|
 21 Jul 2010 16:59:41 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| JVP, being the JVP, will never agree with anything GOOD or BAD unless they get the credit and it has to be done acoording to their Jara Vikalpa Padanama(JVP) |
saleemtariq
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2084
Member Profile
|
 21 Jul 2010 18:25:32 GMT Report for Abuse
|
JVP and even JHU seem to be acting more in the interest of the people than the government, a change, the common man must welcome. Under true democracy with press freedom and neutral police and judiciary people can freely elect or de-elect their leaders any number of times and for any number of years but under the present system, state run media seem to influence the outcome of the election together with political influence from the civil servant. However, leaders who serve long terms can become arrogant, dictatorial and be surrounded by relatives and friends, which cannot be in the interest of the masses.
The world could witness the police being threatened with dismissal for having done their job in the demonstration against UN workers.
The police officers are responsible for operative directives to their police force, but, a civil servant threatened the IGP for deploying police to restraint the demonstrators who used violence in removing the iron gates and trying to get into the UN office. The minister organised the violent demonstration telephoned the civil servant who in turn threatened the police officer in charge to withdraw the police or else he would sack the IGP. This is a very dangerous situation of interference with law enforcement and who knows with judicial judgement ( otherwise no civil servant can issue a warning of 'hanging' for giving evidence to UN investigators). So there is no true democracy in Sri Lanka but ad hoc jungle laws to ensure continuation in office by whatever means possible and take vengeance on minorities and political opponents.
Edited By - saleemtariq - 21 Jul 2010 18:29:58 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions