Last week president himself declared 19th amendment is the root cause of the political chaos in the country. President further went on to say that both 18th and 19th amendments are politically incorrect as 18th amendment paved way for pacifism while 19th amendment paved way for anarchy in the country. If he is raising this point with the idea that he himself and others who were instrumental in bringing in this reforms made a mistake, then it can be accepted fact for all of us. However, in my point of view, the underlying idea in president’s statement demonstrates the fact of unskilled governance which has become the key issue in our political landscape.
Hence, my column today is focused
on the so called complications created through the 19th amendment.
The important point which we need to keep in mind is the fact that this so
called “failed” project of 19th amendment commenced targeting the
2015 presidential election. The idea of unifying under one platform was
presented to public with the concept of common candidate on one hand and with
the proposal of 19th amendment on the other hand. In that sense one
can argue fth amendment and current president are
two components of a single project. Another significant point here is that both
the above projects commenced as a result of serious foreign influence in
domestic politics. Though the election was held on 8th January 2015,
some foreign ambassadors and certain politicians have held “planning meetings”
long before that. There were rumors saying that such planning meetings were
mainly held in Singapore and even the first sketch of the 19th
amendment was designed during such meetings. The idea what I am trying to point
out here is that when we analyze all above facts we can come to the conclusion
that “yahapalana” politics of 2015 January and 19th amendment are
two sides of the same coin. Therefore, president’s claim that 19th
amendment is the root cause for the political chaos which country is currently
going through, is a half-truth. In my
understanding that statement needs to be amended as follows to make it a true
statement; the current political turmoil is a direct consequent of the chaotic
political change of 2015.
Due to the undemocratic nature in
which 1978 reforms were carried-out during JR’s rule, there’s a common
perception among countrymen that almost all the constitutional amendments
following that were carried out in a similar manner. Several historical records
such as the incident involving MP Sarath Muththettuwegama and MP Abeyrathna
Pilapitiya of Kalawana electorate, indicates that during JR’s time there had
been a tendency where he could amend the constitution as and when he wanted. Such
incidents prove the fact that constitutional reforms or amendments under JR’s
rule were not based on critical common political needs but they were mainly
done on personal or party political requirements. Even though 19th
amendment was not done under the reign of JR, as per my point of view 19th
amendment was also proposed mainly to satisfy whims and fancies of certain
political figures.
Though one of the objectives of
the 19th amendment was to remove certain executive powers originally
granted to the president, it is a common secret that 19th amendment was
architectured in such a way that in fact it’s main objective was to create
certain political limitations for Rajapaksh family members.
The clause that a presidential
candidate who has been elected for presidency for two times cannot contest for
a third term was introduced in 19th amendment, directly restricting
the possibility of former president Mahinda Rajapaksha contesting as a
presidential candidate in future. A minimum age limit of 35 years was
introduced with the idea of not allowing Rajapaksha’s children to contest for
presidency in near future. It was none other than certain UNPers who blabbered
that a special clause restraining any person holding dual citizenship
contesting for parliament was introduced directly to avoid the possibility of Rajapaksha
brothers (Gotabhaya and Basil) contesting. Ultimately with this personally
motivated mandates being incorporated, 19th amendment has receded
down to a mere written statement which in one hand has messed up the executive
body in the governing hierarchy while strengthening the position of Prime
Minister on the other hand. President
himself realizing the short-comings of 19th amendment, which he was
instrumental in implementing, is in a way a positive move, yet the noteworthy
fact here is that whether we like it or not now the procedure to remove the
amendment is cumbersome. Therefore, in
my understanding best way forward would be to invent a new structure of
governing which can help bridge the shortfalls of 19th amendment.
With the scenarios in the
political arena It doesn’t seem likely that there would be an opportunity to
abolish 19th amendment in near future. Also there’s a possibility of
governing structures getting further messy following the next presidential
election as a result of clashes created due to certain clauses of 19th
amendment. According to the 45th
clause of 19th amendment only a MP can be appointed as a member of
parliament which in other words would deprive the opportunity for a future
president to hold any ministerial portfolio’s. As per the 19th
amendment any cabinet in future will be limited to 30 ministers and also
cabinet ministers can only be appointed with the recommendations of the Prime
Minister. In addition, one major complication created by 19th is the
procedural issues in relation to the commissions established. In my point of
view, the verdict which will be served by court in relation to the case filed
by former IGP on him being removed from the position will mark a mile stone
with regard to formation of commissions.
In this context the most
important strategy for any future government is to find creative ways escape
through available loop-holes in 19th amendment to avoid possible
governance crisis. If you carefully analyze and interpret the clauses one such
possibility can be found in the section related to appointing cabinet
ministers. Even though president is devoid of the authority to decide the
number of ministers, complete authority to gazette relevant subjects and
responsibilities is still in the hands of the president. Also there is no
strict ruling saying that all institutions, departments and corporations should
be gazetted under the purview of ministers. Therefore, according to my personal analysis,
the 19th amendment itself has created space for the existence of a
separate set of government institutes which could be regulated and handled
under a strong administrative structure. A system could be established where
this set of public entities are headed by non-political appointees who are well
qualified to hold the responsibility and these institutions are liable to
report to the parliament via president secretary and are audited under the
direct supervision of the cabinet secretary. Such a governance structure would
definitely pave the way for an enhanced and efficient public service system in our
country.
On the other hand, one major
complication we had to face in the past was that executive powers were
delegated to ministers from the president and then ministers become direct
agents of the executive body neglecting the role of the legislature. This is the main reason why we didn’t have
MP’s who were ready to put their heart and soul in to the exercise of drafting
laws and regulative acts with a substance. If carefully handled there’s enough space to
maneuver the 19th amendment to improve the parliamentary system in a
way that role of the parliamentarian is made strong without letting the role of
the cabinet minister override that.
In my opinion the only options
left within the given context is to realize that pointing out to short comings
of 19th amendment which in fact could have been addressed at the
stage of implementation is a worthless effort and try to creatively formulate a
new structure through which such short-comings could be managed in future.
Dr Charitha Herath
@charith9
Normal
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE