A glimmer of hope?

Wednesday 21st October, 2020

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has reportedly undertaken to effect three significant changes to the 20th Amendment (20A) to the Constitution besides those the government is required to introduce in keeping with the Supreme Court determination on 20A to obviate the need for a referendum. They pertain to urgent bills, the size of the Cabinet and the constitutional safeguards introduced by the 19th Amendment anent the state auditing mechanism, we are told.

Flexibility is a virtue in democratic politics, and the government ought to soften its stand on 20A further so that more changes could be introduced, at the committee stage, with the concurrence of the party leaders. One can only hope that the final version of the Bill to be put to the vote will be acceptable to all stakeholders.

The Auditor General and his department must not be bound with any political fetters if they are to watch over public assets diligently and ward off threats thereto effectively. No state institution should be removed from the Auditor General’s purview on any grounds. If this country is to lift itself out of poverty, rampant corruption and misuse of public funds have to be eliminated. This is not something attainable without a powerful auditing outfit protected by constitutional safeguards.

President Rajapaksa has reportedly said that the number of Cabinet ministers will not be increased. The size of the Cabinet must not be increased under any circumstances. Instead, it must be downsized if possible. This country does not need more than a dozen Cabinet ministers. We have had 10 Ministers of Education, including nine in the provinces. The same goes for other vital sectors. When the Provincial Councils become functional again, we will have to maintain 45 ministers in the periphery and about 30 at the centre. A President with the people on his or her side need not worry about disgruntled elements within the ranks of his or her government, seeking ministerial posts. President Rajapaksa ought to learn from his elder brother’s experience. President Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed jumbo Cabinets and accommodated all political dregs in them, to please them, but what happened to him in late 2014? Most of them turned against him and dislodged his administration.

Urgent Bills by their very nature are antithetical to the principle of people’s sovereignty. If people are sovereign, as the Constitution says, then they must be able to have a say in all Bills that affect their rights, freedoms, property, etc. There has to be an extensive public discussion on every proposed law. The President has reportedly decided to confine urgent Bills to situations arising from disasters, and national security exigencies. This sounds a sensible amendment, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Above all, the need for a constitutional provision to enable the post-enactment judicial review of laws cannot be overemphasised. At present, laws become faits accomplis upon being enacted.

The enactment of a judicially sanctioned Constitution or a constitutional amendment with a special parliamentary majority does not necessarily mean that it conforms to the best practices in democratic governance. The existing Constitution, which passed muster with the Supreme Court and was enacted with an unprecedented five-sixths majority, in 1978, is a case in point. It has since been everyone’s bugbear. The 13th and 18th Amendments also serve as examples.

Meanwhile, it is not only the full-blown resurgence of COVID-19 that has adversely affected the government’s political health, which is apparently failing; its obsession with 20A has also caused its popularity to drop discernibly. The government ought to be mindful of the reaction of the youth, in particular. They welcomed last year’s regime change, which rekindled their hope. They went through a catharsis of sorts and gave expression to their emotions through the medium of art. They took to the streets, wielding brushes, and turned the whole country into an art gallery unlike in the past, when they painted anti-government slogans on wayside walls, took up arms and perished in their thousands, chasing a revolutionary mirage. Worryingly, their enthusiasm has fizzled out over the months. The national health emergency, which necessitated lockdowns and quarantine curfews, may have dampened their enthusiasm, but they have remained active on social media platforms, and their creative posts are no longer complimentary about the President or his government. Their resentment and cynicism are palpable. What has brought about this sea change in their thinking, which was so positive about ten moons ago? Their disillusionment with the system seems to have set in again. This is not a good sign.