Editorial

Is it going to be a Constituent Assembly or a Constitutional Assembly? Will the provisions of the 13th Amendment be expanded to provide for more devolution; is it going to be ‘Federal’ or ‘Unitary’ or ‘United’; how much powers will Parliament and the Prime Minister have and the President not have; what is going to be the future of the electoral system. The number of mind-boggling questions that beg an answer seems daunting, to put it mildly.

The Government began its second year in office with the announcement of a ‘new’ Constitution, only for the Opposition, or a part of it to demand that the word ‘new’ be deleted. So, they want a Constitution (which we have), but what they suggest (probably) is that only amendments be introduced to the existing (1978) Constitution. The Third Republic as some political analysts referred to the possibility of a third Republican Constitution after 1972 and 1978 therefore might just be the Second Plus Republic.

No doubt, each and everyone has a view on the 1978 Constitution ranging from those who once called it a “bahubootha” (nonsensical) one to those who actively canvassed for it then but now feel it has passed its shelf-life and a brand new product is required. The President goes on record saying Constitutions are not written on stone. Coming from the historic city of Polonnaruwa, he would know best the impermanence of kings and their edicts.

Our Legal Affairs columnist made some valid points in her column last week in this newspaper. Asking the powers-that-be to learn from past mistakes in constitution making, she suggests genuine consultation with the public at large. She quotes the South African experience as a good example and points out that a hurried and superficial exercise will defeat the purpose of consultation because eventually it could be struck down at the Supreme Court because a change must anyway be done in accordance with the existing Constitution and the provisions it gives to make changes. She cites the 2001 example when “unlikely bedfellows” as she put it, torpedoed the proposed new Constitution of that year.

Clearly, well-meaning as well as spurious forums, pundits and so-called intellectuals will come up with suggestions from the sublime to the ridiculous and external forces will also throw in their tuppence through front organisations, but that is the painstaking task for any Government before the nation and its people are provided with a Basic Law of the country.

Second, she stresses the crucial issue of framing the question that will be put to the people at a would-be Referendum i.e. to change certain insulated provisions of the Constitution that MPs alone cannot approve. She says the Supreme Court has already held this cannot be a ‘political question’ framed by the Government and to elicit a “Yes” or “No” answer in terms of the Referendum Act No. 7 of 1981, the question must not have any ambiguity in defining the will of the people. Who will decide the question(s) however, remains in suspended animation for now – for if not the Government, who will decide on formulating these questions?

The Opposition, or sections of it, quite rightly suggest that the final draft must go through the Supreme Court for its constitutional validity. The Government seems to concur with this approach. It is also argued that there must not be one broad question that extracts a simple “Yes” or “No” answer. The only Referendum held in Sri Lanka since the 1978 Constitution was in 1982 and what a controversy that was – a vote that extended the life of Parliament.

Each and every change in the extraordinary safeguards already provided in the Constitution must be separately asked, and answered. There’s however a long way to come to that stage in consultation, compromise and consensus process that has only just begun.

A new or nearly-new Constitution is peddled as the panacea for all the country’s ills. That is partly because there is a mistaken notion that all ills of the country flow from the 1978 Constitution. This is furthest from the truth. In the meantime, political gamesmanship and power plays are already in motion. There’s a lot of murkiness in the political water and this makes it difficult to see things clearly. Major issues are going to crop up like foreign judges hearing purported war crimes cases, devolution issues and the powers of the President, Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

The more immediate issue that this country faces however, is the state of the economy; buffeted as it is by declining Balance of Payments, large re-payable loans, a rupee that is on the edge of a precipice and a collapsing world economy to boot.

It is in such a scenario that the Prime Minister will leave for Davos, Switzerland next week. This is a place known as the ‘Rich Man’s Club’ – a meeting place of the world’s political and business elite where participation is only by invitation. The Sri Lankan Premier might be like the man with the ‘clean suit empty pocket’. Important global issues like whether the world is sleepwalking into geo-political turmoil are to be discussed. In Colombo, the Finance Ministry issued a media statement this week saying the Government decided to defer the implementation of two major revenue proposals of the 2016 Budget – those relating to amendments to VAT (Value Added Tax) that impacts heavily on indirect taxes that affects everyone, and NBT (Nation Building Tax) which impacts on big businesses which in turn pass the burden down to everyone else anyway.

Restrictions on exempt supplies on the wholesale and retail trade have been removed to ease the rising Cost of Living question and car importers who opened Letters of Credit before the Budget was presented have also been given the benefit of the pre-Budget tax rate. While poor Budget-making has been cited as a cause for the confusion reigning supreme in the local economy, there is to the Government’s credit the impression that it is sensitive to the people’s problems – especially on the Cost of Living front.

Even more crucially though is from where the Government is going to find the money to offset these revenue proposals that were in the Budget. From where is the Government going to finance what is left of the Budget for 2016?

While the Government launches its ‘nearly new’ Constitution drive, the state of the economy will certainly will play its part on the mood of the people when it comes for passage at a Referendum at a future date. The UNHRC resolution and war crimes probes hover in the bushes. It is a testing time for the Government. The honeymoon is over; now it is time to put their new house in order.