20A and dual citizen

The 20th Amendment to the J.R. Jayewardene 1978 Constitution was done and dusted on Thursday night with the Gotabaya-Mahinda Rajapaksa government comfortably clearing the two thirds majority barrier. Since President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s election as the country’s seventh executive president in November 2019, nothing kicked up as much controversy as the 20th Amendment which the government was clearly intent on enacting despite, in our view, the far more important challenge of Covid-19 confronting our country and its people today. “First things first,” we said in this space last week, least expecting the powers- that-be to elevate the Covid nightmare above 20A on the national priority list. And so it sadly was, although the virus was spreading far too fast for comfort necessitating more and more stringent restriction in many parts of this island, particularly in the Western Province.

Government propagandists worked overtime to sock home the message that the president and the government elected some months after Gotabaya’s decisive victory had received a massive mandate and were fully entitled to press on with 20A. Although the present rulers came very close to getting what Junius Rex, the old fox who drafted the 1978 constitution, had calculated to be a never-attainable two thirds majority, they ignored the fact that neither President Rajapaksa nor his government said anything about a 20th Amendment in the manifestos they presented the country. There is not an iota of doubt that the people were very well aware that those who are now in office were ironclad in their ex post facto opposition to the 19th Amendment – despite all but one of them voting for its enactment. While it was clearly stated that the incumbents will bring a new constitution, the voters were never told that a 20th Amendment would be presented and passed in an almighty hurry. Claiming a massive mandate for doing what was accomplished last week was clearly not in order.

The 1978 constitution that established the proportional representation system of elections in place of the previous first-past-the-post Westminster model the country had followed since Independence, sought in vain to impose an anti-defection deterrent. It attempted to to ensure that MPs elected on party lists would lose their seats if they chose to defect. But this endeavor has proved to be a dismal failure. We’ve had a great many defections since then, with the numbers growing last week, but no single lawmaker who changed sides has lost his or her parliamentary seat. The less said the better about inducements and/or considerations that influenced switching allegiance. The people well know that there are no free lunches and many of the defectors have fed well, nay very well, at the trough. One of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) members who voted for 20A was quoted in a newspaper saying she didn’t take even a cent for what she did. It sounded better in the original Sinhala – “sathayakwath gaththey ne, puluwan nam oppu karanna.” (I didn’t take even a cent, prove it if you can). Explaining her vote on the floor of the House on Friday, this National List lady said that she, like Antonio in Julius Caesar, “loved her country more” (than she loved her party)

This newcomer to politics was the so-called ‘owner’ of the SJB which was among the recognized political parties in the books of the Election Commission. When Sajith Premadasa and his supporters broke away from the green party, they acquired the SJB label to enable them to field their candidate list as a party at the last election. We do not know what the arrangement was, but Ms. Diana Gamage was included in the SJB National List after the election. Digressing from the thrust of this commentary, let us say here that the dozens of unknown or barely known political parties cluttering the Election Commission’s ‘recognized party’ register should be cleaned out as they have been and will be continue to be used for political expedience. The new system of elections promised in the next constitution, which the president says will be in place for his second election anniversary (November 2021), could ensure this.

To return to the subject under discussion, the dual citizen provision in 20A merits special mention. Nobody would dispute that particular provision in 19A clearly targeted the Rajapaksas – specifically Gotabaya and Basil, who were citizen of both Sri Lanka and the USA. It was clearly venal in intent. While Gotabaya renounced his US citizenship to run for president, braving a welter of legal challenges against his candidature and suffering many campaign disadvantages over the risk factor (would his candidature be annulled?), Basil Rajapaksa did not do so. Among the stalwarts of the SLPP-led alliance publicly denouncing doing away with the 19A provisions on dual citizen are three party leader-ministers, Vasudeva Nananayakkara,Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila. They are now on record saying that they were voting for 20A, including the dual citizen provision, on the basis of an assurance by the president that the new constitution to be enacted by November 2021 will retain the 19A prohibitions on dual citizen.

The unanswered question that remains hanging in the air is why a year-long window favoring dual citizen is being kept open if the prohibitions will be reimposed in the new constitution next year. Has any assurance been given that this opening will not be used? No answer was forthcoming during the 20A parliamentary debate. We believe that dual citizen should not only be prevented from running at presidential and national election but also not be permitted, with foreign allegiance, to assume any high public office in this country. Disgracefully, the authors of 19A during their previous tenure in government, started the rot by appointing dual citizen as ambassadors. The icing on the cake was appointing a Singapore citizen as Central Bank governor. He is now a fugitive of the bond scam investigation.