News
A two-thirds majority does not bode well for democratic governance
View(s):With general elections due to be held shortly, the Government has made no bones about its intention to seek a two thirds majority of seats in Parliament. 
The explicitly stated purpose of seeking a two third majority is to amend the 19th Amendment while it is also being highlighted as an indication of the strength and stability of the Government in office. Seemingly the executive presidency alone is not enough to ensure a strong Government as repeatedly claimed earlier.
The implications of a Government obtaining a two-thirds majority has to be examined carefully in order to ensure the correct decision is taken by the voter when exercising his franchise at the forthcoming parliamentary elections.
A study of the concept of a two-thirds majority in the constitutional architecture of the country clearly demonstrates that it is designed to ensure that national consensus is reached on important matters affecting the country. The constitutional provisions clearly postulate that any legislation intended to amend, repeal or is inconsistent with specified articles of the Constitution will require a two-thirds majority for it to be passed into law.
In a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and pluralistic society such as Sri Lanka when a law is passed with a two-thirds majority ideally there should be a buy in from all communities. If substantial (not necessarily two-thirds) majority is not obtained from each of the respective communities together to make up the two thirds majority in Parliament, it will not result in the ownership of the relevant legislation by all the communities. While the two-thirds majority that is obtained will still be legal, in the absence of substantial support from each of the main communities, it will still be lacking in moral strength as it will amount to exclusion of one or more communities from the process of making decisions that are deemed critical in terms of the Constitution.
The fact that the Constitution allows a Government to be formed with a simple majority but requires a two -thirds majority for the passage of special legislation is an indication that the two thirds majority concept must actually include consensus across party lines.
A good example of building national consensus across party lines was seen in the case of the passage of the 19th Amendment. The 19th Amendment was initiated by the Yahapalana Government which did not have a simple majority, let alone a two thirds majority, in Parliament. By a process of persuasive lobbying and a great deal of give and take the Yahapalana Government was able to build consensus over the 19th Amendment with the Opposition which had a large majority in Parliament.
Eventually out of the 225 members of parliament only one voted against the 19th Amendment which was enacted. Today many of those who voted for the 19th Amendment are critical of the law although they did not see any flaws at the time of voting.
Such a change of thinking vis-a-vis the provisions of the very law they voted in support, highlights the danger of a two thirds majority which is drawn from one party or one political formation which acts purely on the dictates of the party whip.
The two-thirds majority that is being sought is a way of removing the constitutional brakes on the legislative process. In the current context it would mean that the two thirds majority drawn from one party will blindly vote when the party whip is cracked.
Once the Government obtains a two-thirds majority the intense discussion that should precede the passage of a critical piece of legislation will be absent as was seen when the 18th Amendment was passed as an urgent bill.
A two-thirds majority will also ensure the dominance of the party leadership in decision making. The proportionate representation system makes the party leadership stronger than the electorate and this will be further accentuated when any one party gets a two-thirds majority as the importance of every parliamentarian in the eyes of the party leadership will diminish.
One of the reasons that the Government is seeking a two thirds majority is to amend the 19th Amendment. What form the amendment will take has not been revealed or explained to the people. The Government believes the 19th Amendment was a failure but does not clearly indicate whether the executive presidency or the Parliament will be strengthened.
According to Government circles the indecisiveness of the previous Government was due to the 19th Amendment rather than the differences between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe during the latter stages of the Yahapalana Government.
It is very likely that a two thirds majority will result in the democratic space opened up by the setting up of the independent Institutions being curtailed.
With regard to the devolution of power too the Government’s thinking is fundamentally different to the concerns of the Tamil political leadership.
Whether the Government will get a two-thirds majority or not at the forthcoming parliamentary elections will therefore determine the country’s political trajectory in the next few years in critical areas of governance. The Government believes that physical and infrastructure development of the North and East is more important than any form of devolution of power to address Tamil concerns. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)