Rajpal's Column

Last year's Chandrika special is this year's poison

Under this distortion of the representative process, a party that has won 80 electoral seats gets only 51 members elected. In contrast the opposition that won 20 electoral districts gets 49 members elected. In no country in the world does such an electoral system exist.''

Under fire is the system of Proportional Representation, which is supposed to be the "monstrosity'' that J. R. Jayewardene foisted on the people.

In the same speech, elsewhere, the President talks of the draft constitution, which was placed before parliament on August 3, 2000. 

She says "….consequently the leader of the opposition pledged to vote for the new constitution, but on August 3, he broke his pledge without giving any reasons whatsoever.'' Therefore, it is said, she now has to go for a referendum to change the constitution. 

So, what's does her draft constitution, which is touted as the national panacea, contain by way of an electoral system? Surprise, surprise. The identical provisions for PR that the JR constitution has, almost word for word. What's good in her last year's draft, is a 'monstrosity'' in the JR constitution. Of course the opposition loses either way. Ranil is a villain because he makes use of the "distorted system'' of the JR constitution. He is also a villain, because he never backed last year's draft constitution which has the identical provisions of this "distorted system.''

The identical provisions that she condemns today as a "distortion'' were proposed on August 3, not even an year ago, and the President of this country has the unmitigated gall to come on public television and say that she is proclaiming a referendum to "change the system of distorted representation.'' Her entire rationale for the change of constitution, stems from this perceived "distortion.'' But, the opposition stinks, she says. It should have backed the draft which contains the same provisions. Ha ha. ( The people are Chinese. Their hair is knotted at the back.)

Small wonder then that the question contemplated in the referendum merely asks "are you in favour of a new constitution?'', and does not say which one. It doesn't say "do you prefer the draft we presented last year?'' (With the footnote we suppose: "which of course contains the identical damnable provisions I want you to vote against?'' )

Save her political skin she must, but common decency demands that she save us the sermon on "sense of honesty and immense dedication to the service of the people''. As for the question asked at the referendum, "do you want a new constitution?", it could refer to any constitution, because certainly it can't be the draft with the same PR provisions she vehemently condemns now. The new constitution could be one that makes the current President a dictator for life. It could be anything. The trick is that it is supposed to be anything but the current one. 

But what looks like a bold midnight political strike seems in fact the President's worse capitulation yet. Her referendum is non-binding. The Opposition doesn't have to vote for a new constitution in parliament even if she wins. The opposition is not even morally obliged to follow a positive result either, because the UNP can always say the referendum was rigged, which is of course probably what it will be. Though the referendum can be made into an excuse for convening parliament as a constituent assembly, that too cannot be done legitimately on the strength of a non-binding referendum. Which in effect means that the non-binding referendum achieves just one thing. 

It leaves the exchequer poorer by a cool 500 million rupees.

That's just the best case. Otherwise, the likely trajectory is that the referendum and prorogation move are the last straw. Political parties which seemed to waver on backing the opposition are now sure about it. The JVP already wants to go to the Hague. 

In one fell stroke, Chandrika Kumaratunga has occupied the moral low-ground, sorry, the moral nadir. She is dictator. And the opposition is definitely going for her jugular.

The only way she can fight that is by force, and by using the judiciary. She seems to have no compunctions about doing both. But it's a bad gamble. J R Jayewardene used it before. He didn't even earn himself a state funeral. 

Incidentally, more lies. "In no country in the world does such a system exist'' she says referring to the PR system. Douglas Amy a researcher on PR writes: "Most legislatures in countries using proportional representation are ruled by a coalition of parties, and some fear that these coalitions are liable to be unstable and to lead to weak and unproductive government. In reality, however, almost all PR countries have enjoyed stable coalition governments. In Scandinavia, for instance, some of these multi- party coalitions have lasted for decades. 

And these large coalitions have commonly passed legislation far more efficiently than our Congress does.

"A few countries, notably Italy and Israel, have had trouble with unstable coalitions. But both of these countries have used extreme forms of proportional representation. 

Israel, for example, allows any party that gets more than about 1 per cent of the vote to win seats in their parliament. At times this low threshold has resulted in over a dozen parties in the Knesset, which has complicated the task of governing. However, most other PR countries use more moderate forms of PR that have a higher threshold and fewer parties. Germany has a five per cent threshold that results in a workable legislature of 3-5 parties. This moderate PR is what proponents are advocating for the U.S.'' 

So much for "no countries having this system'' unless the Scandinavian countries, Israel and Germany are not "countries.' The funny thing is, the PR recommended in last year's draft constitution presented by the President, is more extreme than PR in most countries.

The draft constitution envisages a diminished cut off point of 5 per cent of votes for small parties to be eligible. So much then for "the sense of honesty in the service of the people.''

The Special Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents