Editorial-May 30, 2013, 7:34 pm

The UNP has unveiled its draft proposal for a new Constitution. Some of the main features thereof released to the media are salutary but, overall, it has chosen to leave much unsaid and, in the process, left room for ambivalence, ambiguity and polysemy.

Having blown hot and cold on the question of presidential powers, it now says the executive presidency should be abolished, but adds in the same breath that the executive powers currently vested with that institution will be divided among the Head of State (to be elected), the Prime Minister and the Speaker’s Council. This means the Head of State won’t be without executive powers.

In the event of the Prime Minister and the Head of State being elected from two different parties, there may arise a situation where they do not cooperate as we saw from 2001 to 2004 with a PM from the UNP-led United National Front (UNF) and a President from the SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA).

The UNP’s position on devolution remains highly ambiguous. It says Sri Lanka shall remain a unitary state or, in other words, has ruled out a federal solution. Power shall be devolved to Provincial Units, but the draft proposal does not mention the degree of devolution. It, in our book, only obfuscates the issue by referring to communiqués between the UNSG and Sri Lankan government, Tissa Vitharana report etc. Interestingly, the UNP says: "The member who commands the majority of a Provincial Council shall be appointed as the Chief Minister and the Leader of the political party which has secured the next highest number of seats shall be appointed as the Deputy Chief Minister." This arrangement may look good on paper but its practicability is in doubt.

Is it that the UNP has found the Supreme Court wanting in some respects? Else, it would not have proposed the establishment of a Constitutional Court (CC) to interpret the Constitution, examine the constitutionality or otherwise of Bills and hear and determine election petitions. The CC will also have the powers to investigate charges against judges of the superior courts in the event of attempts to impeach them. But, what would happen in case of such charges being brought against the head of the CC? Will he or she be allowed to remain at the helm pending the probe thus leaving room for interference?

The proposed Council of State (CS) consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, leaders of the political parties represented in Parliament and the Chief Ministers of the Provinces to ‘decide on all political directions and national priorities’ with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers legally bound to implement its decisions has all the trappings of a flight of fancy. This is a country where the two main parties did not cooperate even on the country’s war on terror or tsunami recovery programmes. So, it is only wishful thinking that the CS will work.

As for electoral reforms, the UNP is for a mixed system where representatives are elected on both first-past-the-post and Proportional Representation systems. It says Parliament shall consist of 225 members. But, if the German Model is adopted, the number of parliamentarians is likely to vary slightly at times and this is an area where the UNP should do some more research. The proposal to do away with the preferential voting or manape system may go down well with the public as it is widely considered the mother of all clashes. (However, if a future government could ensure that the country is ruled according to the tenets of Buddhism as the UNP promises, then the preferential vote will cease to be a problem!)

Measures proposed to ensure good governance such as the setting up of independent commissions are salutary. What is of special interest is the proposed anti-corruption law to tackle bribery and corruption in the private sector. "Anti-Corruption Agency law shall include Bribery and Corruption in the private sector and shall apply retrospectively." This has been a long felt need. But, doesn’t it go against the grain to make any law apply retrospectively? While praising the UNP for having realised the need to combat malpractices in the private sector which has become the engine of corruption, one may ask whether it will deal with its senior members responsible for mega corrupt deals declared null and void by the Supreme Court itself such as the illegal sale of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and the Lanka Marine Services property during the UNP-led UNF government (2001-2004).

The UNP’s draft proposal, we are afraid, reminds us of the promises political parties and their leaders made in the past while striving to capture power. J. R. Jayewardene promised to create a righteous society; R. Premadasa undertook to eradicate poverty; Chandrika Kumaratunga pledged to rid the country of bribery, corruption and political violence and Mahinda Rajapaksa vowed to abolish the executive presidency. But, we are where we are today because all of them heeded Machiavelli’s advice after being ensconced in power: "The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present."

The existing Constitution is the UNP’s own creation and among those who voted for its passage in 1978 were some of the present-day UNP bigwigs including the incumbent party leader. We thought they had no problem with their own Constitution but only took exception to the 18th Amendment which was passed without their concurrence. Will they explain why they want the JRJ Constitution scrapped now? If their vote face is due to any draconian provisions therein will they tell us why they did not campaign for the abolition of those features when their party had a five-sixth majority in Parliament?