Politics vs Constitution-building
There was a political joke doing
the rounds in the 1980s when the current Constitution was being amended
and further amended and, yet again amended, in accordance with the
interests of the regime of the time using its steam-roller five-sixths
majority in Parliament. The joke was that when a researcher in the UK
went to the famous British Museum Library and asked to access the Sri
Lankan Constitution, he was guided to the 'Periodicals' section.
Our Constitution seems to be undergoing a similar rapid revision
today as barely a week goes by without fresh ideas arising about changes
to the basic law of the country and the institutional structures of the
national polity.
The 19th Amendment, so long awaited by most citizens tired of the
depredations facilitated by the 18th Amendment, finally saw the light of
day a few weeks ago but in a much diluted form. Those legislators who
strove hard to revise the Bill and dilute its provisions using their
majority voting bloc in the House must take responsibility for
deliberately blocking the efforts by the current governing coalition to
reform the presidency in the manner long sought by pro-democracy forces
in the country.
That it is the same set of legislators that is delaying the
appointment of the Constitutional Council set up by the 19th Amendment,
seemingly indicates a political agenda to block efforts at the actual
democratisation of our 'democratic socialist republic'. Since it is
these same legislators who remain the sole supporters of the recently
deposed former President, their anti-democratic intentions revealed by
such political manoeuvres should not come as a surprise. After all, it
was the very anti-democratic character of that presidency that served to
swing voter sentiment in favour of Maithripala Sirisena and his rainbow
coalition of virtually all other political parties and movements.
Neither should their behaviour in their overnight 'protest' in
Parliament come as a surprise - given the esteem and reverence with
which they hold the national legislature. In the light of this
parliamentary behaviour, their current actions blocking the introduction
of the 20th Amendment to enable crucial electoral reforms as well as the
string of 'no confidence' motions being signed and flaunted in the
public eye should all be seen as part of the manoeuvres not for justice
and democracy but for individual political survival.
All this should clearly indicate to the citizens and voters as to
where the battle lines are drawn between those who genuinely value
democracy, institutional governance and justice for all and, those who
value first their own individual political (and other) fortunes and
understand little about institutions and processes of governance.
For the nation as a whole, the focus should not be on the mere antics
of a single set of cornered politicians, but on the efforts of the whole
range of political parties, major and minor, as well as concerned
citizens' movements, to transform our political system now so battered
and deformed by sheer greed and abysmally mediocre governance.
Threatening the Police
In these 'terrorism' ridden times, generally speaking, anyone who
threatens violence against the State or any particular agency of the
State, is liable to be labelled a 'terrorist'. Indeed, not just labelled
but often prosecuted and punished or, in less-than-civilised
dispensations, summarily dealt with either by arbitrary arrest or actual
physical attack and even assassination. Usually, it is the politician in
power who is quick to label others, especially political rivals out of
power, as 'terrorist', that convenient catchword so useful in harassing
dissidents and political rivals.
Last week, however, it was a Councillor of the Southern provincial
administration who reportedly chose to threaten an agency of the State
with physical violence, even killing. According to reports, this
politician indirectly called for the police personnel of the Financial
Crimes Investigations Division to be 'stoned to death'. He further
expansively announced that this would be done in a new political regime
led by a former President. That he thought that this former President's
regime would enable such a thing as a barbaric massacre of police
personnel through stoning, says much about the style of governance that
this politician expects from that ex-president.
More importantly, if such a threat has been made by this politician,
then he stands to be labelled as a 'terrorist' himself, and face due
prosecution. It is no wonder then that this politician's passport has
been impounded.
The public, so used to hearing leaders of the previous regime
threatening various forms of violence and humiliation against political
rivals, will now wait to see if this seeming latest misbehaviour by a
minor potentate of the last regime will be firmly dealt with by the
authorities or, whether this behaviour too becomes yet another symptom
of the disease of impunity that once swept this 'paradise isle'.
|