Disconnect between Parliament and People: A recipe for disaster

 

One of The Island columnists has correctly pointed out that considering 'the previous attempts to introduce constitutions were undertaken by governments which secured either two-thirds or fivesixths majorities, for a minority government to even consider such an exercise is clearly morally indefensible and constitutionally wrong, without having had a mandate from the People'.

By Dr D. Chandraratna-February 3, 2019, 10:56 pm

If the gulf between the people and Parliament widens, democracy in peril. It is not only in my Fair Isle that this disconnect is putting democracy under a cloud. This state of affairs was evident in the mother of parliaments recently when those who voted for Brexit were duped by the political class in Parliament who refused to deliver. Voters in Paris protest in the streets, wearing yellow vests while in the rarefied atmosphere of the Swiss Alps in Davos the politicians who have arrived on first class fares or their private jets look down on the Parisian streets and tell them what is good for them. To go back to the people on important issues that impact on them is the essence of democracy. The British Parliament is now under pressure to go back to the people as regards Brexit, and if the reason is to clarify the issues on the British economy, which were not understood clearly by the electors, it is difficult to object though strong Brexiteers are likely to be unhappy.

Our current leaders ought to understand that holding on to power should not be the essence of a robust democracy however much you have a self belief that you alone will safeguard democracy. The majoritarian two third affirmation by our deputies adorning the seats of the August assembly, thanks to our idiocy, should not be the ultimate symbol of public assent. Mahinda Rajapaksa Rajapaksa realised this fact in 2015 and 2018. The huge majority which prompted astrologers to predict his certain victory in 2015 came crumbling down and

this should be a warning to the current rulers.

It is now talked about in the West that their democracies have been affected by a virus in the central operating system, disabling its ability to make decisions. The reason is that at the core, democracy is about choosing between contradictory policies. At most times, this is about making compromises and ironing out differences. Choices have to be made in an orderly manner and the time-tested method is compromise and negotiation. If the rulers succumb to the arrogance of power and power, that will allow mobs in the street or the autocrats to decide on our behalf.

France even a charismatic leader was brought to his knees by yellow vests. Just as much you cannot allow the elites in Parliaments to stymie the mandates given by the people, it should dawn on our deputies that pitting their power against popular will can only be the start of a poignant tale of how they took the nation on a disastrous precipice.

Wrong time for constitution making

It is my belief that the antics of TNA leader R. Sampanthan and his deputies have, no doubt, put the Sri Lankan democracy on a razor's edge

this time around. His apocalyptic visions of catastrophe is likely to destroy peace and solidarity of all. The exercise is based on anger and outrage for their own sake, trying to thwart every constitutional argument other than an unbelievable mix of a hybrid constitution, which is without parallel anywhere else in the world. It seems to be based on contradictory principles which will not hold the centre. It is likely to incite people. That is what happened in Britain. All the British major parties, the media, big business, trade unions, every quango and NGO, all supported Remain but the common people voted to leave by a clear majority. Between the people and Parliament was a wide chasm.

Any reasonable person will not oppose moves to address the grievances of minorities within a unitary state. However, we must oppose any move that will lead to the division of the country. Experts who draft constitutions will know better that federal constitutions remain as one unit only with iron clad safeguards against separatism. This must be made abundantly clear.

The majority in Sri Lanka are a people who want to live peacefully in a sovereign, independent one nation.

The 'National Government' that initiated the constitution making process has now been replaced with a minority government that survives with the support of the TNA, which was once deceitfully the recognized as the Opposition. One of The Island columnists correctly pointed out that considering 'the previous attempts to introduce constitutions were undertaken by governments which secured either two-thirds or five-sixths majorities, for a minority government to even consider such an exercise is clearly morally indefensible and constitutionally wrong, without having had a mandate from the People’.

In true democracies, the digital feedback, midterm elections and constant polling help politicians to adjust their actions in keeping with the promises, values and policies made to the voters. We seem to have drifted to the other extreme.

This is why the voters are testy, and naturally the ruling parties are full of self-doubt and frightened to face the people.

In my view the 2015 national government delivered only the 19 the Amendment, which is now found to be full of loopholes. As one of the opinion articles recently said 'the majority, if not all, of the Panel Members were and are known ardent supporters and advocates of yahapalana regime who vehemently campaigned for the regime change in 2015 both at presidential and parliamentary elections, known for their strong conviction that there is an ‘ethnic or national question’ in Sri Lanka that can be addressed only through a new constitution with provisions to ensure extensive devolution of power to provinces. MP M. A. Sumanthiran, one of self-declared experts, is a leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which supported the LTTE as the sole representative of Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka, and gave us hell for thirty odd years. Some misguided intellectuals advocate this move. Without doubt a vast segment of the population of this country do not subscribe to these ideas. So, can these self-proclaimed experts write a constitution acceptable to the vast majority of citizens of Sri Lanka?