Columns

One of the problems of democratic governance is it does not address problems faced by society as fast and as quickly as may be desirable. On the other hand, a positive feature is it facilitates an informed decision making process after adequate discussion among stakeholders and other agencies of government which must of course take time.

That is the theory. However in practice in many functioning democracies this does not always happen. How to strike the right balance between decisive decision making and informed discussion is highly dependent on the leadership skills as well as the political will of those vested with the authority to make such decisions.

When the anti Tamil pogrom broke out in July 1983, then President J. R. Jayewardene delayed taking action by 48 hours before giving the order to the Armed Forces to quell the riots. By then the widespread violence had developed a momentum of its own and eventually created the conditions for an armed conflict which had an almost irreparable impact on the economy and on the relationship between the different communities in the country.

While many would have dubbed President Jayewardene’s actions as indicative of an anti-Tamil disposition, it was probably not so but rather due to an unstated political objective he wished to achieve. It is not difficult to come to such a conclusion when one examines the views he expressed only two years earlier.

In 1981 when the Tamil communities in Ratnapura and other plantation areas were at the receiving end of United National Party (UNP) hooligans he referred to such incidents and publicly remarked: “ I am ashamed of my party.”

Two instances in recent history when opportunities were lost due to extensive discussions without being tied down by timelines were the Constitution reform processes begun in 1994 and 2015. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge’s government which took office in 1994 held intensive consultations with all stakeholders and conducted discussions across the country resulting in a draft Constitution that was presented to Parliament in 2000.

But the process had taken too long and the political climate in the country had changed and the Constitution was aborted.

Similarly the Yahapalana Government initiated a Constitutional reform process in 2015 and was able to forge a great deal of consensus on many key issues incuding the Tamil question. However the process could not be completed by the time it went out of office in 2019. The only success it had was in enacting the 19th Amendment which was carried through Parliament in the first few months of the victory of President Maithripala Sirisena’s victory on January 8, 2015.

However despite reducing the powers of the Executive Presidency the Yahapalana Government could not complete its declared goal of abolishing the Executive Presidency as time had run out for the Government.

In 2019 President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a team of legal experts to draft a new Constitution and promised to enact it by his first anniversary of becoming President. However even after two and a half years in office, at the time he was forced to step down due to widespread protests, the draft of the new Constitution had not seen the light of day nor were any of its provisions made public.

There is an important lesson for Constitution making based on the country’s recent experiences. While intensive discussions are vital to ensure that the best possible Constituion is developed, time is also of the essence. Both Sri Lanka’s successful Constitution making experiences were achieved within two years of the governments’ that spearheaded such efforts assuming office.

The first Republican Constitution was enacted by the Sirima Bandaranaike Government by May 1972 after coming to power in May 1970 while the J.R. Jayewardene constitution was enacted in 1978 after his Government took office in 1977.

Any prolonged Constitution process is fraught with danger and has limited chances of success.

With regard to the current crisis too while discussions are important to decide on the steps to be taken to salvage the economy, such talks must be completed quickly. An all-party or multi-party government is being touted by all shades of opinion as the mantra for meeting the challenges faced by the economy. There is however no known agreement as to what the common minimum programme of such a government would be. Besides there is difference of opinion whether it should involve sharing of portfolios or working through Parliamentary committees.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe has suggested calling it an all-party arrangement to encapsulate both these options. However the time for agreeing to modalities and coming to a conclusion as to how the burden of governance is going to be shared is fast running out.

The US$ 3.5 billion funds received from India for fuel and other essentials and World Bank aid for cooking gas coupled with better management of the limited resources has given some relief to the beleaguered people. There are many other issues such as the shortage of medical drugs which have to be addressed.

A sense of urgency has to drive all sections of the political establishment to survive the crisis and get the economy in to some form of order. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)