Debilitated, but not too bad

By Victor Ivan 

The limitations of the entire process were good. It was, it may be said, a constitutional amendment that was passed without a proper discussion of the matter among the people. The people had just heard about a system of independent commissions but had no understanding about them, and did not know what they really were. No action was taken to help them understand, either. The draft was not even published among the people before it was sent to the Supreme Court to consider its constitutionality. It may be considered that the constitutional amendment was least deliberated on by the Supreme Court. It was not placed before a special and broad panel of judges appointed for the purpose. The matter was merely considered before a three member panel of judges which had been appointed to inquire into other matters. The worst aspect of this constitutional amendment was that it was debated in parliament and passed without a final draft being tabled in Parliament. This may be the first instance in the history of constitutional amendments where a constitution was amended without a final draft being tabled in Parliament.

The contribution of the main opposition party, the UNP, to this process of constitutional amendment, too, was extremely unsatisfactory. The first draft submitted by that party for the 17th Amendment, too, was an extremely weak one which did not go beyond the proposals for constitutional amendments which the PA presented at the parliamentary election campaign. The draft presented by the Association of Professional Organisations was better and the UNP, after the severe criticisms which its own draft was subjected to, submitted a new one based on that of the Association of Professional Organisations. It was a carbon copy of the draft of the Association of Professional Organisations except for the section on the composition of the Constitutional Council. That itself had many shortcomings but, in a context in which such matters are not discussed at expert level, the shortcomings and mistakes were not corrected. 

The government based its draft on the one tabled by the UNP and, at the same time, cleverly used the mistakes and the shortcomings in the UNP's draft for its own advantage. For instance, although it would be essential to vest in the Constitutional Council the right to re-appoint the heads and members of the institutions which are functioning in addition to those of the four new commissions, the UNP's draft did not include provision for it and, because that exclusion would permit the present government to retain further its henchmen, the government too refrained from including provisions for the purpose in its own draft too.

The biggest mistake which the UNP made in the process of framing this Constitutional amendment was that it was not alert about the draft that the government was preparing on the basis of the UNP's draft. Surprisingly the UNP did not even send to the Supreme Court a panel of lawyers with a profound understanding of the subject at the time the government was sending its draft to be examined by the Supreme Court. It was an equally serious mistake that the UNP as a party with the greatest experience in the field of parliamentary affairs helped the government to take up the 17th Amendment for debate and to get it passed without a finalised draft. Although the UNP should have helped this amendment to be passed after obviating the shortcomings, that party had an obligation to have the final draft prepared and to postpone the process of tabling it in Parliament and getting it passed, if no finalised draft was available.

It was due to the intervention of the JVP that it became possible to get such a programme of reforms enacted even in a somewhat debilitated state.

Some honour is due to that party on that score. However, the role played by that party in this process of constitutional amendment was not mature or excellent. The JVP tried to get the programme of constitutional amendment passed somehow, but does not appear to have paid proper attention to the need to ensure the qualitative value that should have been there when those proposals were being made into law. Perhaps the JVP agreed even to proposals that turn the process of reform to a state of debility in order to get the government's agreement. The JVP even drifted to a position of asking whether it was wrong to have a representative of the President who had been elected, if the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition were to have representation in the Constitutional Council.

In all countries where a democratic political system prevails, the head of government is elected directly or indirectly. However, due to the very reason that the head of government is the chief executive, in most countries the right of the head of government to appoint the heads and members of institutions whose independence should be protected is restricted. It is the people who elect the President of the United States. However, the President must get the approval of the congress in selecting and appointing persons to key posts. The names for such appointments sent by the US President to the congress are subjected to a thorough examination, and there are many instances when the congress rejects the names recommended by the President. In the proposed system of the Constitutional Council, it is the Constitutional Council which has the right to recommend the chiefs and the members of the institutions that should have an independent status. For this reason the chief executive should not be permitted to have a hand in the matter. The JVP either because of its lack of understanding in such matters, or because of its enthusiasm to deliver what it had promised, or because of its desire to please the President and the government, followed a policy of distorting the essence of the constitutional amendment instead of defending that essence. The JVP's policy in regard to the Judicial Service Commission, too, was similar. Dr. Jayampathi Wickremaratne who was the author of the draft, represented the government on the one hand, and represented his friend, the Chief Justice, as his defender on the other hand. The J.V.P. in regard to the Chief Justice followed a lenient policy. When Dr. Wickremaratne's intention was to leave out of the Judicial Service Commission such senior judges as Mark Fernando and Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe and to keep it in a position which the Chief justice would control, the J.V.P. approved it. 

In the transaction for a probationary administration the role played by the JVP did not appear to be mature or impartial. If the JVP informed the Opposition about that programme and sought their support to it and moved unilaterally towards a transaction with the government, then the JVP would have earned the respect of impartial people of all parties. When the JVP entered into a probationary programme with the government and stopped all criticism, and drifted to a policy of severe attack on opposition parties, the JVP gained an image of a supporter of a tottering government instead of an image of impartiality in relation to opposition parties. 

Only the government appears to have acted in an extremely able, subtle and shrewd manner in this whole process. The government's aim appears to have been to grant the political reforms demanded, while keeping the Constitutional Council which may be considered the heart of the reform process, in a position in which the government can control it in a subtle manner, protecting the Chief Justice who has now become the chief political protector of the government, and keeping in a position in which it can control at the future elections, the 'ITN', 'Lak Handa' and 'Lake House' are in a position in which they can be used for its political needs. The UNP seems to think that the Constitutional Council is now in a position which the government cannot control. Whether it is really so, is due to be tested soon. 

The writer is the Editor of Ravaya

Is it all for the sake of the people?

And now we have this phenomenon of so many "historic" changes in our political world, courtesy the JVP. The cabinet stays at 20 ministers, farmer loans are being written off and Constitutional Councils are being set up, thanks to the "we will not support you" threats of the sahodarayas.

It is not government at gun-point, but the difference is marginal.

And whenever such "historic" things happen-which these days is very frequently- we see Wimal Weerawansa sahodaraya chirping up, stroking his beard philosophically and telling the masses that they have won yet another victory for and on behalf of the people.

The JVP strategy is simple: we stay out of government and take all the credit for winning the concessions that are being granted to the people; but if the government makes mistakes, the PA will have to take the flak and we can still say we should not be blamed for those.

All this is very good and we, the people, should be very happy. Here after all is a party that is hell bent on getting the best for the people- and it doesn't even want a cabinet portfolio in return! But now more and more people are asking, why?

The JVP may have killed thousands in the two insurrections they unleashed in the early seventies and the late eighties but in recent years, their political behaviour has been virgin-like, compared to the promiscuities of the PA and UNP. So, their stock is rising steadily in the electorate. But the big question is, what next?

Just suppose that at the next elections the JVP gets an even bigger slice of the cake- twenty seats, for instance. That would mean that whoever wishes to govern will be compelled to beg for the JVP's support whether they like it or not.

What will Wimal Weerawansa sahodaraya say then? Submit another list of demands, insist on no more privatization and no more talks with the Tigers and refuse a ministerial post yet again?

Already Colombo's haughty corporate world is speaking in whispers of the possibility of a bunch of rag-tag revolutionaries infiltrating the lower ranks of their establishments and wreaking havoc. What will their reaction be to such a proposition? Or, will the JVP turn turtle, abandon its socialist doctrine and opt for "capitalism with a human face" as someone famously said a few years ago?

To date, neither Wimal sahodaraya nor his less charismatic colleague Tilvin sahodaraya has offered an insight on what the JVP hopes to do next. It is a disadvantage for the Red Brigade because many, especially those of the older generation, are still suspicious of the JVP's intentions and see a sinister motive in every move the party makes. 

And, to be fair by them, the cryptic moves by the JVP have not served to redress those concerns.We know from experiences with the two major parties that power corrupts.

But power without responsibility- the kind which the JVP enjoys right now- can corrupt even responsible people. That is why the people are now asking the JVP, "me kauda, mokada karanne?"

Holding hands to protect biz interests

By Susantha Goonatilake in New York

As politicians showed defiance; business leaders gave their money to rally the country. When the stock exchange reopened those who fought for the city, the Mayor, firefighters and the police, officiated. For US businessmen, defence was put before profits and indeed defence was a necessity for good business.

The New York Times full-page ads by business leaders were the most important and for us Sri Lankans, most interesting. It was a contrast to our own business "leaders".

But there were two other outrageous acts I had earlier seen in foreign countries. A few weeks ago I saw from London the attack on Katunayake airport, replayed over and over again on British TV. And in January 1996 I had seen from New York, the bombing of our own financial heart, the Central Bank. The pictures on the TV screen were as vivid.

There were other connections and similarities between the incidents and the perpetrators - the LTTE for us and Bin Laden and the Taliban for the US. Like the Taliban who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues, the Tigers had attacked far more important Buddhist sites, the Sri Maha Bodhi and the Dalada Maligawa. The Times of India was now reporting that Western intelligence agencies were investigating the close and growing links between the LTTE and Bin Laden's organisations. The LTTE had been advising the Bin Laden group on LTTE techniques including suicide attacks. And the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri reported that the Taliban was supplying the LTTE with weapons.

The minorities are far more accommodated in Sri Lanka than in the US. Tamil is an official language. (In India it is only a regional language.) In Sri Lanka, in contrast to the US, Tiger apologists and the foreign funded lobby is asking for a separate state based on language or devolution based on ethnicity. 

But the biggest difference is between the reactions of the US business community and sections of our own business community to the respective attacks. US business is defiant, asking for the only solution left after so much unreasonable fanaticism, namely a military solution. In our case sections of our business community are calling for talks with the LTTE, whose only peace revealed by their actions and statements is a total surrender to a separate state. If the US businessmen were putting out full-page ads of patriotism and defiance; our businessmen were putting out ads crushing the will to fight. They gave orders for their employees to demonstrate but could muster only a handful of demonstrators. If the US war veterans were calling for a just war, a section of our veterans had joined a foreign funded organisation that called for retreat. One of "our" business leaders, the Chairman of MAS Holdings, said, "Crushing terrorists and taking away its leadership cannot be a solution," a strong contrast to US business leaders.

Our business community is today facing real challenges. A major one is the unprecedented eight-hour power cuts brought about by buckling to those sections of our society that had historically being against our interests and who are now against the thermal power station.

Ours is a weak, petty business class. "Our" business "leaders" are a strong contrast to patriotic businessmen in India, Malaysia or Singapore. Our self designated business community who perhaps unknowingly order their employees to demonstrate for Tiger interests are walking on very thin ice. They are far more vulnerable to nationalist anger than they imagine. A boycott of their banks like the black Americans did to anti black business in the 1960s could bring them down. And a few crippling strikes in the garment industry. And export quotas, on which they depend, can be changed by a government order just like their electricity supply.

Royal row over TV firm

Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the press complaints commission, is seeking the involvement of broadcasting regulators after Ardent Productions broke ranks in William's first week at St. Andrew's University.

Previously the threat to William's privacy was assumed to come from sections of the press rather than broadcasters. But the Ardent affair has led to concerns that broadcasters should be included too.

Lord Wakeham will write to the broadcasting standards commission and the independent television commission to seek an early meeting. He is said to be concerned that the behaviour of the Ardent crew threatens the understanding between newspapers and St. James's Palace, which gives media access to official photocalls but allows William's privacy at other times.

Ardent was twice this week asked to leave St. Andrew's but continued to film. The producers appeared to believe that, because of their royal connections, they would not be admonished. They left only after the intervention of an "incandescent" Prince of Wales, who had been contacted by his son William. A spokesman for the PCC said: "Prince William's privacy has always been a matter of great concern to the British press which has worked hard - in cooperation with the PCC - to ensure that he maintains as much privacy as possible.

Television regulators have no specific powers over the conduct of broadcast journalists - their main responsibility is for standards in programmes that are broadcast. But a PCC source pointed out that the newspaper code, which covers all instances of intrusion, is voluntary. There would be nothing to prevent the broadcasters adopting a similar code.