Saturday Jul 06, 2024
Saturday Jul 06, 2024
Tuesday, 31 March 2015 01:37 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
I am in the second camp. I had what appeared to be a minor disagreement with the representative of the JVP while on a TV talk show. He said the people had voted on 8 January for three things: change, punishing corruption and creating the conditions for clean politics in the future. I said that the order should be different: change, creating the conditions for clean politics in the future and punishing corruption. But it turns out the differences are not minor at all.
The order I proposed is reflected in the formation of a National Government the previous weekend and consistent with the following statement in the First Chapter of the Manifesto of the Common Candidate for the Presidency. The JVP’s umbrage at the formation of a broad-based Cabinet supports my assertion.
Along with the political leaders and people who are with me I will implement in two stages a program to stabilise the country. The first stage is the Hundred Day Program to solve urgent issues. For that purpose a National Unity Alliance Government will be established for a hundred day interim period. This program will be implemented through a National Government comprising the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the United National Party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya and representatives of all other political parties in the present Parliament who are willing to join this program. The Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe will be appointed as the Prime Minister of this National Government.
The urgent issues
The urgent issues are Constitutional: changes to the executive presidency and the electoral system are the most prominent. They set the rules by which all other national decisions are made. The Common Candidate’s Manifesto said correctly that “the President needs the assistance of Parliament to change the post of Executive President. That is because it is Parliament which has the power to amend the Constitution.”
To effect certain Constitutional changes, approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum are needed. The Manifesto explicitly states that such changes are not contemplated. Other Constitutional changes require a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Even at the 2010 election after the end of the war, a single party could not gain a two-thirds majority.
To effect any Constitutional changes, the support of multiple political parties must be mobilised in the form of votes amounting to a two-thirds majority. The UNP and the parties explicitly supporting the President are not enough. There is no alternative but to obtain the support of the UPFA, or at least of the SLFP.
Some Constitutional changes require even broader support. It may be possible to change the electoral system without the agreement of all parties, but it is not advisable.
A unique moment in our history
We are now in a unique moment in our history. A large number of political parties and organisations signed on to the Common Candidate’s program before 8 January. After the election, the SLFP also pledged to support the 100-day program. If this consensus can be maintained, the Constitutional changes can be made.
As the time to vote on the Constitutional amendments approaches, it is necessary to consolidate the consensus, perhaps even repair it. That appears to be what is going on.
Those who think the Government should have priorities other than Constitutional reform may see the National Government as wrong move. But in that case, they might as well argue for immediate dissolution of Parliament and the abandonment of the 100-day program. Without the SLFP, there are no votes to pass an ordinary bill, let alone Constitutional amendments.
An election is the only way to gain a majority in that case. But if an election is held under the present Proportional Representation and preferential voting system, no one is likely to get a simple majority, let alone a two-thirds majority if past elections are any guide. Even if the electoral system is changed, it is unlikely that the outcome will be very different. An election now will result in abandoning changes to the Constitution.
Is this what people want?
