Editorial:Needed: A robust Constitution

Click Here-The Island
Editorial

Needed: A robust Constitution
September 8, 2010, 9:06 pm
So, the 18th Amendment drama is over. The government is cock-a-hoop, preening itself on its performance, and the Opposition is licking its wounds. We have reason to believe that there are some more amendments in the pipeline as the government amends the Constitution the way it conducted PC polls––on a staggered basis.
Now that the two-term limit has been removed, President Mahinda Rajapaksa can rest assured that his second term, which begins in November, will be trouble free. Since the question of a successor does not arise, he will not be considered a head of State ‘on his way out’. Therefore, the forces that propelled him to power will not gravitate towards any other person. He has also managed to shake off the shackles of the 17th Amendment and is now in a position to begin his second innings as the late President J. R. Jayewardene started his first term in 1978 with the Opposition lying spread-eagled.
But, as is our experience, it is when roads are clear that disasters tend to occur. If President Rajapaksa, intoxicated with power, lets his whims and fancies get the better of reason during his second term, he is bound to find himself in the same soup as his immediate predecessor after her re-election in 1999. The wise learn from others' experience and avoid pitfalls and pratfalls.
The existing Constitution has been the bane of the country. It came into operation in 1978 with a person elected to represent a small constituency appointing himself the Executive President of the whole country! It was thereafter amended to provide for a referendum to ask the people whether they needed a general election! (Thus, the JRJ government retained its five sixths majority obtained under the first-past-the-post system.) Successive governments have violated it with impunity.
The myth of the executive presidency guaranteeing political stability got blown sky high in 2001, when President Chandrika Bandaranaike's government fell and the UNP-led UNF captured power in Parliament. Under JRJ, the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa once lamented in Parliament that he was no better than a peon in a government department. In 2001, the executive president was reduced to the level of a peon and Parliament regained its supremacy, albeit for a brief period. The change of government in that year turned the Constitution on its head! We now know that the country gets plunged into utter chaos when the incumbent President's party fails to secure a clear majority in Parliament and when his or her party controls Parliament, he or she becomes all powerful and democracy suffers as a result.
According to the 18th Amendment, the President is required to attend Parliament once in three months and take part in proceedings. It is being made out to be a provision aimed at strengthening Parliament but, in reality, President will be in Parliament under a testudo of privileges and immunity preventing him from being criticised or questioned in the House. So, what's the use of having the President in Parliament?
Parliamentarians may have thought their problem (read the Executive) was confined to Temple Trees or the President's House, but hereafter the problem will be physically present in the Chamber every three months! Instead of making the Executive President somewhat responsible to Parliament, in our book, this particular provision will enable the President to dominate the legislature as never before.
You know you are getting old when the candles cost more than the cake, legendary comedian Bob Hope famously said. Similarly, you know a Constitution has outlived its usefulness when amendments to it contain more provisions than the original text! Tinkering with the present Constitution is like nursing a gangrenous limb or giving a facelift to a crumbling edifice––an exercise in futility. No amount of effort will help knock that into shape.
The need is felt more than ever for a new Constitution to be prepared with the participation of all stakeholders.
The country needs and deserves a robust basic law.