Overbearing Constitution must be changed - Vasudeva

Democratic Left Front Secretary, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, a veteran politician who staged a comeback to Parliament after nearly a decade, at the last April poll having contested Ratnapura district under the UPFA ticket, says the election fatigue is not the whole story but the present electoral system which compels voters to choose non-attractive candidates is to be blamed for the low voter turnout. The present constitution must be changed immediately, he said.

He said “Our grouse against the present constitution is that it has not only a dictatorial structure but also a dictatorial outlook. Fortunately we have Mahinda Rajapaksa as the President and as such the fears have been, to an extent overcome but the very nature of the constitution is dictatorial that is why it should be changed”.

Excerpts of the interview:

by Manjula FERNANDO

Q: You have been a political activist, a trade unionist and counts five decades of experience as a politician. How do you feel about your comeback?

A: I had been throughout engaged in activities outside Parliament even before I became an MP in 1970. I had been a political activist since I was a student. I was constantly in and out of Parliament. I entered Parliament in 1970, left it in “77, and then again I was reelected in 1989 and 1994 but was out of Parliament for 10-years until my re-election this time.

Q: Do you wish to continue as the Presidential adviser?

A: No, not really, because now I have to function as a Member of Parliament. If I am given responsibilities of the executive then I should be doing that rather than function as an adviser to the President, unless the President makes a special request which I will certainly consider.

Q: Would you accept a ministerial post in the UPFA Government?

A: Yes.

Q: If so will it not hinder your other social activities?

A: It will to an extent restrict my work due to the heavy workload of the Ministerial portfolio but I will certainly do my best. The ministerial work will absorb a larger percentage of my time and space. I will have to find accommodation for my other concerns such as political work of the party, trade union activities, my interests in governance. All those are matters for which I want to devote my time, so that the ministerial work should not restrict my other activities

Q: Your election slogan was ‘social justice to down-trodden and the under privileged’. So do you think accepting a ministerial post will not clash with your other interests?

A: I shall try to harmonise my ministerial responsibilities with my commitment to the cause of the underprivileged and in fact you have put it in a nice way - the slogan I have developed which in short means ‘towards a socialist society’ and not a populist society. A Ministerial portfolio will be only secondary.

Q: What do you think is your biggest challenge?

A: Well, Finding ways and means to get more funds for the Government for social welfare and poverty alleviation, rural development and increased inputs to education, pro relief programs together with health will be prioites to me. These are the areas in which the Government needs to spend much more than they have done so far. We have to find the money and persuade the government to spend more on these areas. The Government has an obligation to go into large investments by itself or in partnership.

Q: Now that you will be representing the people in Parliament they would like to know your opinion about the political solution to the North/East issue and constitutional changes?

A: Solution is almost there since the end of the LTTE regime has paved the way to set up a provincial administration. We have to strengthen and expand the provincial administration to meet the aspirations of the Tamil people.

Constitutional changes should incorporate a solution for the problems of the Northern and the Eastern Tamil people. It should empower them much more than what they are today - basically the change in the electoral system in addition to ensuring their fundamental rights. We need to ensure full consensus as far as possible so that we will have a stable constitution.

Q: But there are dissenting views within the UPFA itself. Do you think achieving consensus will be an easy task?

A: It won’t be easy, nevertheless it’s achievable, because of the largest majority the Government commands. Any dissent will be entertained and discussed, I believe by the government, but ultimately if it cannot be brought round for approval then the Government has the strength to go ahead.

Q: Do you believe it wise to give a two third mandate to a ruling party. Will it not be an incentive to abuse power? Isn’t it good to have a strong opposition?

A: It is very good to have a strong Opposition. A strong Opposition at the same time requires a good constitution. A good constitution is possible only with the two third majority. Even without it but, on the basis of the mandate of the people we should be able to set up constituent assembly. In any event we need to change the constitution and give more powers to the local government bodies together with funds and make people come in contact with the local bodies as a main arm of governance and development in the area while not overlooking the Provincial Councils since provincial issues are required to be addressed.

Q: The Opposition, in the run up to the parliamentary election claimed the Government sought a two thirds power to establish a dictatorial rule?

A: That is nonsense! They have the right to make such charges as they are in the Opposition. We all must be mindful of democratic structures of Governance and democratic principles of Governance as well in formulating any constitution. The Government members too are very concerned that no dictatorial powers should be allowed to be assumed by anybody. In fact, our complain against the present constitution is that it has a dictatorial structure and a dictatorial outlook as well. Fortunately we have Mahinda Rajapaksa as the President and the fears have been to an extent assuaged but the very nature of this constitution is dictatorial that is why we want this out of the way.

So the original claim that we want a dictatorial rule is baseless because we do not want to replace the present dictatorial constitution with another dictatorial one. We want to replace it with a democratic constitution.

Q: You will be returning to Parliament after a lapse of nearly a decade. Our readers would like to know what your wishes and hopes are?

A: I wish I should be able to see the change of the constitution into a democratic one where people’s participation is more involved and where the local bodies are empowered in administration. The change of the present electoral system, more investment in social welfare and social development programs like education and health are my other priorities.

Unemployment being reduced with large scale public investment like in Singapore is progressive. Sixty per cent of Singapore’s revenue comes from its state-owned enterprises. Reduce taxes placed on people. Increase the burden of taxes on those who can afford are other areas of vital importance.

Q: Going by the ordinary norm in which most MPs are interested in their personal well-being rather than public interest, could you ensure a support base in Parliament for your mission?

A: We don’t know ...we have to find our way through. We have to find people with public interest. For instance, providing vehicles to members of parliament should be limited to their official work. These should not be made their own property. The vehicles must be returned when the official work is over. That should be the kind of guideline for compliance.

Q: Why did you choose to contest under UPFA ticket?

A: Because my party, the Democratic Left Front is a constituent party of the UPFA. We joined UPFA under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership.

Q: How do you interpret the low voter turn out at the recent Parliamentary election? Is it just due to election fatigue or have the voters lost faith in the present political system?

A: Election fatigue is one but that’s not the whole story. I believe a kind of a disinterest began to seep into the minds of the voter. The election of the President was decisive to the people and therefore they came in large numbers and voted. But then in electing individuals as MPs they had not much of a choice and therefore their interest gradually diminished because many of the candidates to be elected did not attract them sufficiently. In the voters’ view, electing members for the district and not the constituency, had no sense or meaning. As far as the voter was concerned they had no control or impact on such MPs.

They would want a change in the constitutional form where electorate would become the unit for voting. Then they can even field their own independent candidates. I believe this will reawaken the interest in choosing the candidates to parliament which in my opinion had disappointingly diminished under the present set up.

Q: So do you think the people’s will was in fact reflected on the final election result?

A: Well, to an extent power and money could play its role in any given situation, particularly in the present electoral system. Subject to the players’ money and power - power meaning state power, muscle power or such other power candidates could unleash. Subject to that there is a reflection of the people’s will of nearly a 50 per cent. So at the present situation you find a number of MPs in the parliament who are not direct representatives of the ordinary people. They are people with money and power in the social ladder. They were the candidates the voters had to elect.

The overwhelming publicity and the power they unleashed became a major factor in the election of these members.There could be exceptions like Sunny Rohana in Ratnapura district who had neither power nor money, I had my political capital built over the years. Considering all these, I think the authentic representatives of the people account for just above 50 per cent of the elected members. This is not an authentic representation, be the Opposition or the Government. An electorate-based electoral exercise would make a much better representation of the people. We should further reach out to the periphery, where you find the real representation of the people.

Therefore, we need to empower local bodies. MPs should be involved in national affairs only, in the national formulation of policy principles, budgeting, control of finance, increasing the revenue of the State. The Provincial Councils must co-ordinate the local bodies.

Q: In India there are strict guidelines and restrictions on polls campaign expenditure?

A: Even here. We have that law since 1958 but it has never been observed, except in breach. And there has been no petitions coming up in the Supreme Court on over expenditure. Upto 1977 there had been such petitions.

Q: Who should take action against such violations?

A: I think any citizen can file a petition. It is the citizen who has to take the initiative. This is what I remember from the past I don’t know whether these laws are still in force but not applied or if they have been negated. Treating was an election offence.

Similarly giving money, using religious places for campaigning were also election offenses. There were restrictions on spending per voter as well.

If these laws have been done away with by the new constitution they should be re-introduced immediately.

Q: People seem to have lost faith in Leftist Parties. CP, LSSP and others fielded about 11 candidates in the election but only three Left wing members managed to get elected including yourself from the UPFA. With Dew Gunasekera and Prof. Tissa Vitharana from the National list, you have just five members in Parliament?

A: Yes, it is hardly sufficient, the Left had not made its mark in the elections.

We should have had at least about six persons elected in our expectations.

The left which is LSSP, CP, People’s Party and Democratic Left Front fielded candidates, about eight altogether. Well that also shows the mood of the election.

Large numbers not voting is one. Those who voted had other attractions and criteria they considered more than the credentials of the Left.

So these are just what you call a ‘torn of the time’. May be that the Left will have to re-emerge and be required to play its role irrespective of the expectations not being realized - The role of social development and legislation to favour the underprivileged and administration to fully apply the resources voted for the poor and the underprivileged.