A Partial, But a Great Victory for

Democracy

We are still not completely aware of the final shape of the

19thAmendment. When it came to the committee stage, there were 63
amendments from the government itself, while the opposition proposing
111 in competition. The government eventually withdrew some of their
amendments as a way of compromise, while the opposition did the
same or compelled to do so. The President Sirisena admirably
influenced both sides for realistic compromises staying in his office in
Parliament throughout the debate yesterday.
by Laksiri Fernando

( April 29, 2015, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Finally, finally the
19th Amendment is passed with only one UPFA MP opposing. Perhaps he was true to
what he was advocating while many others were chickening out, including the law
professor. There was an eleventh hour compromise on the Constitutional Council, but
the government rightly did not budge on the appointment of Cabinet of Ministers. If the
President kept all the powers to unilaterally appoint the cabinet of ministers, as the
opposition wanted through their dubious amendment, then there was no much
meaning of the 19th Amendment. The main purpose finally was to remove the
draconian powers of the Presidency. The complete abolition required a referendum as
the Supreme Court determined. That was beyond the promise or the mandate.
The 19th Amendment itself was a learning process for democracy from the time it was
mooted in the President Sirisenas Common Candidate Manifesto subscribed by many
political parties and civil society organizations. When it came to the drafting stage,
there were many temptations to add or subtract things depending on political
expediency. The pressure of time and divergent views on presidential vs parliamentary
systems also gave rise to confusions. There were vacillations as much as
intransigency. The main obstacles to its smooth passage came primarily from those
who were directly and indirectly towing the line of the former president Mahinda
Rajapaksa. Otherwise, according to the 100 Day program, the 19th Amendment could
have seen the light of the day about two weeks back without much dilution.
Achievements
The 19th Amendment does not abolish the presidential system. Instead it transfers
many of the executive powers to the Cabinet directly responsible to the Parliament.
The responsibility of the President to the Parliament is also enhanced through the
Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Therefore, the fundamental plank of the dictatorial JR
Jayewardene constitution is now changed for the first time after 1978. It has also
changed the Mahinda Rajapaksa constitution which enhanced the concentration of
powers through the 18thAmendment without a term limit and also by abolishing the
independent commissions.
The people effectively defeated the attempt to continue in power for a third term by
Rajapaksa/s on January 8th by unleashing a period of democratic change culminating
in the passage of the 19th Amendment yesterday. The process will not end there.
Presidents Manifesto also talked about a change in the electoral system which could
possibly be implemented before the next general elections. There are, however,
several hurdles to overcome.
Hereafter, a term of Parliament and the President limits to five years and not six years.
This is in align with many democratic countries. The President also cannot dissolve
parliament arbitrarily, until the expiration of four and half years. These are progressive

democratic changes.
With the passage of the 19th Amendment, the stigma of a minority government also
has ended. The present government now effectively is a national government of the
UNP and the majority SLFP also backed by a broader (executive) council of many
parties and civil society organizations. This does not mean that the present
government should continue. The present government is a transitional government.
Even the present constitutional change is a transitional change.
What might be necessary for a fundamental democratic change in the country is a
New Constitution even aiming at resolving or paving the way for resolving the national
question.
However, this should be done without neglecting the economy or economic
development. To achieve that objective, the next parliament should be a different one
to the present free from corrupt, violent and communalist political representatives. It
should and could function as a Constituent Assembly. The best way to achieve this
objective is to change the electoral system in an interim manner, abolishing the
preferential voting system and even introducing the constituencies (seats) as in the
good old days, but without fundamentally altering the present proportional
representation. As this kind of a system is not unfamiliar to the voters, there is no
necessity for a long lead-time between the necessary 20th Amendment and the next
elections.
President Sirisena along with the Prime Minister Wickremasinghe have proved their
capability of building up consensus (through some compromises) under most trying
and difficult circumstances. Some of the compromises are not ideal. Some are even
problematic. However, without those compromises, the overall realistic changes could
not have come through given the prevailing circumstances. The existing parliament or
most of its members are fundamentally opportunistic. They still live in the Rajapaksa
era. Their mentality is archaic. Some of them directly wanted to bring back the ancien
regime. That regime was dictatorial, corrupt and deceiving of the people.
The former puppet PM, DM Jayaratne did not have any qualms in saying that an
amount of dictatorship was/is necessary to run the country. He said that on the 27th,
during the constitutional debate. The highly emotional speeches yesterday not only by
WDJ Seneviratne or Bandula Gunewardena, but also of Dilan Perera, unfortunately
were testimony to their close attachment to the ancien regime. Finally, finally they
voted for the 19th Amendment, revealing their absence of a backbone. Therefore, in
essence it was a difficult task in an apparently a hostile parliament.
Controversies
We are still not completely aware of the final shape of the 19th Amendment. When it
came to the committee stage, there were 63 amendments from the government itself,
while the opposition proposing 111 in competition. The government eventually
withdrew some of their amendments as a way of compromise, while the opposition did
the same or compelled to do so. The President Sirisena admirably influenced both

sides for realistic compromises staying in his office in Parliament throughout the
debate yesterday. Therefore, the final passage of the 19th Amendment was also a
victory for his moderate policies and sober but firm democratic vision.
The key amendments on the part of the opposition were proposed by WDJ
Seneviratne. Rajiva Wijesighes proposals were aiming at some improvements, I
believe. Perhaps Seneviratne was the scapegoat for the Rajapaksa project. Most
strangely the law professor who was eloquently arguing against the fundamentals of
the 19th Amendment from the beginning, did not propose any, perhaps feeling a cold
feet or wanting to hide behind.
The two main issues of contention until the eleventh hour were about the appointment
of the Cabinet of Ministers and the composition of the Constitutional Council. If the
main change anticipated in the constitutional system was about a government
emerging from the representative parliament, which popularly called a parliamentary
system, then the appointment of ministers on the advice or with concurrence of the
Prime Minister is a logical proposition. If there were reasonable doubts that the
executive presidential system might turn into an executive prime ministerial system
that was not the case since the complete abolition of the presidential system was not
in the 19th Amendment which required a referendum. This was known even before the
Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the objections on the part of the opposition were
completely misplaced based on a political power game and/or visualizing constitutional
principles in personal terms.
On the question of the composition of the Constitutional Council, the opposition
demand was quite self-centered, to make it completely a Parliamentary Committee of
MPs (!) which betrays completely the objective of Independent Commissions and the
independence of the services and institutions coming under them. If there were any
concerns about the Constitutional Council becoming a self-serving bureaucratic or
elitist entity, that was not the case since the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the
Leader of the Opposition were members of the proposed Constitutional Council. As a
compromise, having two MPs would have been enough without having four in addition
to the three parliamentary officials. Unfortunately, the compromise has gone too far to
possibly damage the independent and impartial character of the Constitutional
Council.
That is why the 19th Amendment is a partial victory. Nevertheless it is a great
achievement and a victory for democratic forces given the prevailing circumstances
and legacy or curse of the Rajapaksa rule. It is a learning experience which can
inspire democratic forces for a forward movement. It is interim in nature and requires
its blossoming in a more democratic and peoples centered New Constitution. That is
why an interim electoral reforms might be necessary to have not only a more
democratic New Parliament but also a democratic Constituent Assembly. Rajapaksa
project is now effectively wounded and its spokespersons may try to console
themselves by painting the compromises as a victory.
Posted by Thavam