It is said that there are ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’. I refer to the recent UPFA advertisement that says –

106 of 163 Polling Divisions

16 of 22 Districts

A two thirds majority.

What it fails to say, is that only 45.6 % of the people voted for the UPFA. It no doubt feels ‘robbed’ by the constitution!

The JVP must thank the PR system for its position in politics today. It was to prevent anomalies such as this, and those of 1956, 1970 and 1977 that the PR system was introduced.

In the recent election, the UPFA obtained 4.2 million votes as against 3.5 for the UNF. That is a ratio of 6:5.The government got 105 seats and the UNF 82. If the ratio was strictly applied, the UNF should have got 87 seats! So even under the PR system the government received an advantage!

It is possible that a fairer system could be found, such as a single member constituency, where the member is elected by a single transferable vote, as in Australia, together with a PR system at a district level as at present. But that is for the future.

As for the changes to the constitution, the Presidential Secretariat trots out the ‘two thirds’ theory of the advertisement. What is abundantly clear is that 54.4% of the voters, voted against the UPFA. It is regrettable that a referendum on the issue was not held simultaneously with the last election. It could have been done very simply with an additional ballot paper. If the referendum was carried, the question of a ‘mandate’ would have been settled without doubt. For the government to claim a ‘mandate’ to change the constitution with only 45.6% of the total vote, is political ‘clap trap’.

There is a legal manner in which the present constitution can be amended. It has in fact been so amended 17 times. The argument that the constitution cannot be changed is a ‘MYTH". The process however requires consensus of all parties to obtain the necessary two thirds majority. What this government is attempting to do, is to do ‘extra legally’ what it cannot do legally,- i.e. without a two thirds majority - because they cannot obtain the consensus of the other parties. It is indeed a dangerous precedent since any future simple majority government which for political reasons, wishes to change the constitution, has only to cite the ‘doctrine of necessity’ to further its own selfish political ends, by creating a ‘constituent assembly’, and producing a new constitution!. In future elections, the people will not only vote for changes of government, but also for changes in constitution! The country may have a brand new constitution after each election!

It is quite clear that the country needs to change its constitution. It is abundantly clear that a new constitution will be required after there has been an agreement signed with the LTTE. The government has said it will deal with the ‘core issues’ with the LTTE and no doubt, with the likes of the President and Lakshman Kadirgamar, produce a result in one year, which the UNF government failed to do in two! Once this takes place, nobody will object to a ‘constituent assembly’ formed of representatives from all the political parties, civil society and professional bodies getting together and producing a constitution for a new future.

Why is it necessary – using the ‘doctrine of necessity’- to change the constitution ‘piece meal’, when a completely new one will be required in the near future? When the executive presidency was not abolished in 1995 as promised by the President, the excuse was that the constitution should not be changed ‘piece meal’. Cannot the same reason be applied today? So why the very, very indecent hurry to change the constitution, and that too ‘extra legally’. Why indeed!