Sunday Times 2
19th Amendment: Delight, disappointment and outrage
For millions of discerning citizens who value justice, democracy and purity in public life the passage of the 19th Amendment would have evoked trifold mixed feelings of rapturous delight, lurking disappointment and angry outrage — rapturous delight that the draconian power attaching to a monstrous executive presidency under which so many have suffered and died has at last been trimmed; disappointment that there has somehow been a dilution of the amendment as finally adopted conceding to the threats of a disgruntled opposition and falling short of the best that the people deserved; angry outrage at the bad attitude of the UPFA/SLFP opposition MPs who though they feebly raised their hands in the end have from the beginning given the impression of being hostile to this amendment in their hearts.
The opposition does not deserve an ounce of credit for the passage the 19th Amendment
There is, of course, much to be delighted about. Sri Lankans are indeed blessed to have a new President who in conformity with his election pledge was ready to surrender as much of the executive power he possessed as the courts might allow without the need for a referendum. His integrity, humility and simple sincerity are an example to the world. His historic impulse to graciously renounce power was in the noblest traditions of high office in stark contrast to some of his predecessors, who, having promised to abolish the executive presidency, not only failed to do so but incredibly went on to enjoy a second term — the kind of dishonesty that in any western democracy would have led to the offenders being instantly hounded out of politics. The most notorious of these was, of course, the former president who having promised to abolish the executive presidency rushed the now infamous 18th Amendment through parliament as an urgent bill concentrating absolute power in his hands where with no limit to the number of terms he could hold office effectively opening the door for him or his lackeys to be president for life.
It is part of the dark political history of our time that 161 members of the present parliament (nearly all of them shameless acolytes of a despotic ruler under whom they enjoyed the petty privileges and perks of useless ministerial portfolios at public expense) — voted for the despicable 18th amendment that contemptuously spat on the people’s sovereignty and gave constitutional legitimacy for dictatorial governance. Moreover that over 5 million people at the last presidential election actually voted for a candidate who had seemingly made constitutional provision for himself or his friends and family to rule forever devoid of accountability, suggests that there are still a great many foolish people in this country both electors and the elected — who have no concept of democracy, care nothing for justice and the rule of law and are happy to stooge corrupt politicians deluded by the dubious promise of some petty short term reward.
President Sirisena in a recent national address perceptively put his finger on the mindset of those who had submitted to servility for so long that they preferred to be slaves even after they were offered their freedom. Clearly, there are still far too many people in this country with this feudal mindset who can be manipulated by unscrupulous politicians.
It is against this dismal background that people nevertheless greet the passage of the 19th amendment with euphoric delight as a major step towards dismantling a draconian presidency and restoring sovereignty to the people. However, such happiness tends to be tempered by the sober realisation that by the time the third reading was passed it had seemingly been diluted in ways that we have yet to learn about.
Whatever form this watering down has taken, to a laymen it seems to have had the effect of perpetuating presidential power that might have been transferred to the Prime Minister as the first among equals in a cabinet of Ministers, increasing the dominance of MPs over the electors by slashing distinguished civil society representation on the Constitutional Council (thereby compromising the depoliticisation of public administration and the judiciary), and finally limiting the authority of an independent elections commissioner over the untrammeled freedom of the media to say whatever they like during elections.
One hopes further concessions were not made to a stubborn and resentful opposition by the time the final reading was passed. At any rate considering the dubious record of past presidents, the low public regard for members of parliament nowadays, and the dispiriting record of election propaganda by the media, it may be natural for people to feel that the dilution of the 19th amendment has if at all shifted the weightage in the wrong direction. Indeed, for all the euphoria surrounding the passage of the 19th Amendment it looks as if this executive presidency has been left with enough power and prestige (no doubt at continuing cost to the State) as to still be attractive to greedy politicians who might now smack their lips and cast their beady eye on the next presidential election in the hope of attaining to the comfort of that exalted office.
Moreover, we must remember that at the last presidential election, millions of voters might have perceived that what they were voting for was the total abolition of a draconian executive presidency and a return to a system where as in the Soulbury Constitution the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister “shall be charged with the general direction and control of the government of the Island and shall be collectively responsible to Parliament”. To such voters, even the original version of the 19th Amendment would have seemed like an anti-climax, the changes compelled by the Supreme Court a setback, and its further dilution during a miserable constipated passage through parliament an emasculation.
However, the part played by a hostile UPFA/SLFP opposition in both diluting this long awaited amendment and delaying its passage through parliament is what stirs the strongest emotion of all at this time — namely anger and outrage. One thing is clear. The opposition does not deserve an ounce of credit for the passage of the 19th Amendment, which with all its shortcomings nevertheless went a long way towards liberating a nation from the shackles of a draconian presidential system under which a nation had languished for 37 years.
True, after what seemed to be much huffing and puffing, fussing confounding and blocking, they may have finally raised their hands, but their hearts were not in it. There is no goodness where there is no goodwill. Nor is there any merit in good deeds where there is bad faith. The motive counts more than the action. The amendment, however inadequate, was finally passed not because of, but despite the malignant hostility of an UPFA opposition whose behaviour from the start suggested that they were negative to the entire process. Perhaps we should not be surprised. Theirs was the reaction of disgruntled sycophants still licking their wounds, seething with bitterness and rancour, resenting the people’s resounding judgment in the humiliating electoral defeat of a vanquished patron who had pampered them for many years.
Ordinary citizens who struggle through the manifold tribulations of life can be justly enraged by a political culture where their representatives who are supposed to be their servants have become their masters and lord it over them. How far the great ideals of representative democracy have been debased in countries like Sri Lanka, where so often for politicians what is pre-eminent is their own power, position, privilege, and the party more than the people? What a terrible travesty of a great vocation, where politicians are called to be the direct representatives of their toiling constituents in the corridors of power. How pitiful that so called people’s representatives who are called to serve their constituents caring and sacrificing for them and sharing their sufferings, should after they are elected behave like feudal lords — arrogant selfish and belligerent.
Posturing and shouting and oozing with smug self satisfaction, they play out their own party games revelling in the luxurious surroundings of parliament far removed from the toils and tribulations of ordinary people.
Once elected, they flash past in their SUVs with security racing behind while their humble constituents languish in the daily travails of public transport with no personal security whatsoever. They complain bitterly about the violation of their parliamentary privilege while their constituents struggle through life with no privileges whatsoever. When one of their kind is so much as requested to make a statement to the bribery commissioner they create an unholy rumpus, vilify an independent public officer, block the roads and obstruct the work of parliament as if a demi god has been insulted, while one of their constituents faced with the same situation would have no choice but to comply with the law.
When they are remanded they are whisked off to the luxury of the Merchants Ward while their poor constituents would have to endure the rats, bedbugs and other discomforts of a remand prison. One hopes that they might be ashamed of such scandalous contradictions to which the public are silent witnesses. As Edmund Burke said “Whilst shame keeps its watch, virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart; nor will moderation be utterly exiled from the minds of tyrants”. Perhaps the absence of shame is part of the problem.
So, for many people, the passage of the 19th Amendment would have evoked a mixture of delight, disappointment and outrage. Perhaps the strongest sentiment is outrage and anger at the numerous opposition politicians who made it so difficult. Their behaviour is the most recent expression of a sordid political culture in which politicians go to parliament to glorify themselves and the party, score debating points and thwart their opponents rather than serve the people who sent them there. Perhaps the people will have the good sense to teach them the lesson they deserve when they next come cringing for their vote.
(The writer is emeritus professor, Faculty of Dental Science, University of Peradeniya)