The Sri Lankan Parliament

I read with much interest Dr. Wijeweera’s two-part article under the above caption in The Island of 24th and 25th November 2008. Dr. W has painstakingly compiled materials from many sources, explains the many drawbacks of the party system and argues convincingly why the existing system of governance should be reformed. I apologise for the long delay in offering a comment.

Dr. W discusses the relevance of two recent judgements in public interest litigation cases- the Waters Edge and the Lanka Marine Services Ltd-in the context of dangers of mis-governance present in the existing executive presidential system. This is the first time that the S.C. invoked the Public Trust Doctrine against an ex-President and established a legal norm in the form of PTD which will certainly be invoked by the SC in future in appropriate cases. This is not to say the principles of PTD were invented in the two cases for the first time in Sri Lanka. Some text-books of management describe the theory of trusteeship vis-à-vis the responsibilities of the directors of limited liability companies which states that the directors of companies have a responsibility to hold the assets of their company in trust for the shareholders and therefore the directors are bound by trust to the rest of the shareholders to use the assets of the company in the best interest of the entirety of the shareholders. I therefore see the principles pronounced in the two judgements as an extension of the theory of trusteeship binding company directors.

The reforms suggested by Dr. W are likely to appeal to all right thinking citizenry and thus pressure the party hierarchies to consider introducing them to the party mechanisms. Once these attitudinal changes are accepted, legislators to whatever political party they belong will behave apolitically and exercise their vote only in the best interest of the country. Considering the killings, bombings, wanton destruction of property, etc. that follow general elections the peace to dawn as a result of the proposed reforms to the society is worth any costs. In this context Dr. W makes it a point to refer to my book ‘The Curse of Party Politics’ in which I call for the ‘extirpation of the party system’ from the political life of Sri Lanka. This is my life term’s dream, which I consider to be a tall order, but on its long road the constitutional proposals explained below will serve as an intermediate stage

Dr. W while highlighting more serious constitutional pitfalls in the constitution, also points out ways and means of how to put them right which in my view may only be amenable by two-thirds majority or through the long route of a referendum. Obtaining a 2/3 rd majority under the existing Government –Opposition relationship seems to be almost impossible.

In the face of these monumental problems of reaching any constitutional consensus, we are compelled to search for a solution that has a novel appeal to the electorate. This invariably means seeking a mandate under an innovative manifesto at a general election. Seeking a mandate in affiliation with each of the parties or jointly with UPFA, UNP or JVP is also impracticable and unrealistic.

To achieve this objective, a political party has to be registered under existing election law. The novel and the innovative aspect of the political party and its manifesto is that it gives a specific constitutional agenda and if its agenda is voted for with a two-thirds majority they will amend the constitution strictly in accordance with the specific electoral mandate. As soon as the amended constitution comes into law every MP who contested and was elected under the party’s innovative manifesto shall resign from Parliament thus making way for the new type of MPs to be elected under the new constitution.

In a nut-shell this is the strategy I am proposing to overcome the present impasse that prevents the country from amending the Constitution.

Let us call the new party the Constitutional consensus Party (CCP) for the time being. Why do I think that the CCP stands a good chance in preference to the rest of political parties? There cannot be stiff opposition from the rest of the political parties against the CCP candidates, because they do not pose a threat to the other candidates, political survival or their party policies. The moment the CCP agenda is accomplished, the CCP members will walk out of the door in accordance with the solemn undertaking given to the voters. The agenda/manifesto proposes only specific constitutional changes that have remained an obstacle to the country’s forward march and does not propose anything abhorrent. Perhaps a majority of the opposing candidates would refrain from being critical of the CCP manifesto, for such opposition would be to their detriment. Even if the opponents are unlikely to be supportive, the CCP is addressing the voters who if sensible will go along with them.

The CCP will be fielding candidates with unblemished character, good educational and professional attainments and good credentials. The educated citizenry comprising of public and private sector leaders, employees, professionals, industrialists, intelligentsia and respectable citizenry from all walks of life are likely to support the CCP. The good image of the organisation built solidly on a base of candidates of good repute, would instantly attract support from the electronic and print media.