Inconvenient truths about constitutional reform

Coalitions are about convenience. Coalitions are sought by those who are convinced that they just don’t have what it takes to do it on their own. Coalitions therefore are about looking for common ground because there cannot be complete agreement (if that were the case such parties would have merged earlier). Yes, it is more about common ground than about common people.

Coalitions are wrought by compromise. Thus, although ‘common’ is the prettier and more marketable word, the truth about coalitions is that they are less about ‘common’ than about ‘compromise’.

Compromise implies a limited objective or limiting parameters of togetherness. The current situation of the Opposition in Sri Lanka is a classic case in point. There are so few points of convergence that there’s virtually no ‘common ground’ at all on important areas of policy.

It is not easy when one party is pulling towards ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ and selling off national assets and the other championing protectionist socialism. When there are a thousand other points of divergence it is natural to latch on to something, anything, even if it is utterly unrealistic.

To reduce ‘manifesto’ to a single line and ignore all the other areas that a presidential hopeful ought to offer in terms of vision, plan and details is a sad state of affairs, but that’s where the ‘Compromise Candidate’ seems to be at this point. Let us remember that this is a fight for the most important public office and not the chairmanship of a maranaadara samithiya.

And so we have the Compromise Campaign pledging to abolish the Executive Presidency. The cheer leaders are quite silent on the ‘why’ of the matter though. Some supporters of the Compromised Candidate have said that the fault is not with the office but the incumbent. Others have pointed out that if not for the Executive Presidency we’d still be fighting the LTTE. There is some logic to that assertion. Just imagine a Cabinet full of turncoats and back-stabbers trying to execute a war against the world’s most ruthless terrorist outfit?

The then Army Commander would still be having the LTTE’s baby brigade coming in their hundreds to the High Security Zones, lifting sarongs and baring their all. A lot of authority vested in a single person was almost a necessary condition for extricating the security forces from the trap that was the CFA.

Someone could say, ‘Well, now that’s all over and done with; do we need the Executive Presidency in a post-war Sri Lanka?’ Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the answer is a resounding ‘no, we do not’. Now the Compromising Candidate has to answer the question, ‘How?’

First comes rhetoric. That’s ok. Soon, though, reality bites. The compromised project is getting further compromised; from ‘I shall abolish’ the Compromising Candidate has moved to ‘I don’t want to be a ceremonial president’. What this sudden change of tune does to the backers we don’t know, but let’s assume that the man overcomes the ego-pull and reverts to the abolitionist position. He meets a question again: ‘how?’

It has to be done within the framework of the constitution; i.e., in terms of provisions therein for amendment. The legal way of dealing with the ‘how’ question would be to obtain a two-thirds support in Parliament for abolition. This has to be then taken before the people, the majority of whom should vote for abolition in a referendum on the matter.

How does someone get the two-thirds majority? Even the strongest and most popular presidents at the height of their popularity of sway with high purchasing power could not secure this magic figure. Next comes not a question but a prediction: unlikely!

This is possibly why some backers of the Compromised Candidate talk of turning Parliament into a Constituent Assembly and use the instrument of a simple majority to abolish the Executive Presidency.

This is not only illegal, if it were possible it reduces the constitution to a joke. It would mean that governments and presidents can use the Constituent Assembly Route whenever an inconvenient element of the constitution is encountered, whether it is the flawed 17th Amendment, the de-merger of the East and North as per the 13th Amendment or stumping the Chief Justice when he started biting chunks off the Executive.

Such a move would be an invitation to anarchy. We know that statesmen are a rarity. We know that we have to settle for morons, thugs and other unsavoury creatures most of the time. Do you feel comfortable letting such an individual play musical-chairs with pieces of the constitution?

Whichever way one looks at ‘how’, one sees an armed guard determined that you will not transgress. His name is Mr. Constitution. Some people call him ‘Uncompromising’.

This poses a serious problem for the Compromised Campaign. Are the architects going ahead with a campaign whose cornerstone is a veritable ‘undoable’ that is anyway not really something that the general voting population worried over, either way? Will they try to bluff their way through the minds of the more discerning?

The trouble is, at some point someone is going to pop the question: ‘you know you can’t (abolish the Executive Presidency) don’t you?’ And at that point the Compromising Candidate cannot say, ‘the UNP has the plan, I don’t’.

Tough times ahead for you Mr. Compromised Candidate but there’s a lesson you can take from all this: stick to that which can be done, avoid loose talk and try to find common ground on other important policy areas. If possible.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malinsene@gmail.com.