Death by committee not an option for 21A

This week, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe delivering a special statement on national television, made some astute observations. He noted that the main issues in our country are not limited to the economic sphere. He highlighted the need for the reintroduction of the 19th Amendment (19A) to the Constitution and the need to work towards the abolishment of the executive presidency. These are indeed very much the need of the hour. 

The recent economic calamity is a direct result of excessive power that vested in a single individual without the necessary checks and balances through the legislature and the judiciary. In this context, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is absolutely correct to identify the dilution of powers of Parliament and diminishing its role as a watchdog on the republic’s finances as a primary cause of this economic disaster.

After assessing the problem quite well the premier suggests some interesting solutions. He recalls the State Council that was in place from 1931 to 1947 when there were seven committees tasked with different subjects. The chairmen of the committees became ministers and these seven ministers formed the Cabinet. As progressive as this may sound one must be cynical of premier Wickremesinghe’s intentions here. He is a past master at killing progressive policies through cumbersome bureaucracy, as some would call ‘death by committee’. Any monumental structural changes to the governance of the State such as introducing a State Council will require extensive consultations, months if not years of negotiations, significant constitutional amendments and most definitely a referendum. 

The Yahapalana Government in which Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister and had a mandate for exactly such constitutional reform. In January 2016, the then government moved a resolution to establish a Constitutional Assembly encompassing all members of parliament, and a Steering Committee chaired by the Prime Minister and comprising all parliamentary party leaders and other senior MPs. The Steering Committee was guided by an experts’ committee that deliberated on numerous aspects of the new constitution.  These numerous committees deliberated for years, hardly finding consensus but coming up with several alternative formats for a new constitution. Yet, the end result was that even after five years and at the end of his tenure Prime Minister Wickremesinghe did not deliver a new constitution. This was probably his intention when he created numerous committees that were doomed to fail.  A few things should be borne in mind at this critical juncture. First there is an overwhelming demand to repeal 20A and to reinstate 19A through a new amendment. This can be done immediately and would not require a referendum. The other pressing demand is for the abolishment of the executive presidency. Here again there are several practical and immediately workable constitutional options on the table. It need not be a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court will determine such changes would require a referendum since the history of the highest court on such matters have not been consistent. For example at the time of the passing of 18A in 2010 which removed term limits of the presidency and by effect changed the whole nature of the State, the Supreme Court did not deem a referendum necessary. 

It is imperative that these immediate constitutional reforms be enacted without getting bogged down with years of meaningless delays as witnessed during the Yahapalana administration. It needs to be remembered that Ranil Wickremesinghe has not delivered or ever championed any meaningful democratic reform in this country. Be it the 17A, the fight against 18A or the progressive 19A, Wickremesinghe had not placed his political capital in any of these. In 2015, he was merely the beneficiary of a movement launched in 2013 by the likes of Maduluwawe Sobitha thera and organisations such as the National Movement for a Just Society that called for significant constitutional changes. 

Therefore, premier Wickremesinghe’s suggestions for State Councils and other seemingly progressive proposals, should be viewed with great deal of scepticism and concern. He must not be allowed to once again scuttle a moment in history that has finally allowed for the dreaded executive presidency to be abolished and the role of Parliament be strengthened. This moment is too precious to be wasted on the whims, fancies and personal agendas of a single individual, especially one with a history like Ranil Wickremesinghe.