26 September, 2020

Blog

20A Must Have A Referendum

By Kusal Perera

Kusal Perara

Kusal Perara

After a long battle fought hard with his own men, President Maithripala Sirisena finally had 20A approved by the Cabinet on Monday 08 June. This incidentally was a special cabinet meeting convened by the President himself for the special purpose of forging consensus among quarrelling party leaders on 20th Amendment. The irony was, he only wanted “20A” and did not have any serious stand on what electoral reforms should be in 20A. It now goes the 20A approved by the cabinet had compromised on PM Ranil Wickremesinghe’s formula of sticking to the 225 MP parliament with 125 elected on FPP system, 75 on proportional representation and the balance 25 from the national list.

Immediately, one of the self appointed electoral reform “experts” from CaFFE brayed its dissatisfaction and proved how wrong it had been in understanding electoral reforms. Issuing a statement CaFFE says though happy 20A finally came, this cabinet approved reform proposal has 03 major flaws. One, it would take a long time to re demarcate the 160 working electorates that now exist into 115 to 118 new electorates including multi member seats. It adds, all through history, all de limitation commissions have added and not reduced seats.

The absurdity of this argument is that CaFFE thinks taking time to do a good and a fair job in re demarcating electorates is bad, as reforms should be limited to easy and quick work. Therefore no serious reforms are necessary, goes the implied argument. Also, these “experts” don’t even know why previous de limitation commissions increased seats. It was to give better representation to the people in a single governing assembly the parliament then, with increasing number of Citizens counted after every 10 year national census. Now, with the 13A in place, responsibilities of the 225 member parliament had been reduced with a second tier representation of people in PCs, responsible for provincial rule. Such constitutional change that reduced responsibilities of the parliament demands a decrease in numbers at the apex assembly, not an increase. Therefore the past necessity of increasing is no more a necessity.

Two, CaFFE says, this will have adverse effect on minority parties. It argues, except by increasing numbers, small political parties cannot be adequately represented. This goes to prove how damningly stupid the “experts” have been in proposing increases. Electoral reforms are not meant to satisfy political parties. They are meant to strengthen people’s representation. Political parties will have to win the confidence of the people, if they want to have their nominees elected. In 1952 the SLFP won only 09 seats, a “small” party then. In 1960 July it formed its own government with 75 MPs. Having formed governments in 1947 and 1952 the UNP was reduced to a “small” party in 1956 with just 08 seats, “smaller” than the LSSP that won 14 seats. Again in 1965 election it won 66 seats to be the largest single party in parliament. How permanent are “small” parties ?

Therefore the issue is not how reforms could be worked out to accommodate the small JVP or the tiny JHU. These are temporary categories if political parties can strive to assert their presence in national politics. “Small” is not a category that should be in electoral reforms. This “small party” issue was a creation of JRJ used by him to justify his switch to a PR system. The issue is how reforms could be worked out to better accommodate the people in a representative democracy. The whole effort by these “experts” had been otherwise. They have only worked in creating space NOT FOR PEOPLE, but for political parties that cannot even get 05%, after the cut off mark was brought down to a pathetic low, from 12% and also to keep the larger parties happy.

Three, this reform will not provide adequate representation for minorities like Tamils outside North-East and Muslims in Sinhala areas and Sinhalese in Trincomalee says CaFFE. Once again, these “experts” see only the parliament as the only representative governing body. Strengthening of provincial rule would take care of such minorities, as far as their rights and socio economic life is concerned. That was why Telugu people wanted a State of their own, the “Telangana State” and did not demand larger representation in the Lok Sabha. At the apex level of governing, their representation has only to be guaranteed as “cultural entities” in policy making. That can be taken care of by introducing adequate number of multi party constituencies. Nuwara-eliya/Maskeliya seat elected 03 members. So did Colombo Central. There were also bi member electorates that allowed space for Sinhala-Muslim and Tamil-Muslim representation in electorates.

On almost the same grounds Mano Ganesan on behalf of their new 3 party alliance says, accepting this electoral reform is suicidal. It is, ONLY if they cannot win adequate confidence in their own constituencies to gain representation, which is not about a system but about their politics.

The actual problem with this cabinet approved reform is not what the CaFFE and Ganesan say it is. It’s the undemocratic and non transparent process rolled out behind closed doors and was restricted to funded project activities to claim “civil society participation”. As with all other reforms under this “Yahapalanaya” rule, this too was heavily based on scheming, manipulating and compromising with few self appointed “experts” working overtime to present different equations and formulas for political parties to reach consensus. This reform process did not know electoral reforms were meant for people to elect their representatives and thus has to be agreed upon by the people.

This supreme condition of people deciding how they should be represented was what the 05 member bench of Supreme Court judges decided as necessary, when JRJ tried to alter the composition of the parliament with a 3rd Amendment to the Constitution in 1981. After the 1977 July election that gave the UNP a massive majority in parliament with 140 out of the 168 elected members, it faced with an election petition against its Kalawana MP Abeyratne Pilapitiya. The hearing got dragged on, but was seen as a case, the incumbent MP Pilapitiya will not survive. Jayewardne thus used his overwhelming majority to keep his MP in parliament by tampering with the Constitution. MP Pilapitiya who meantime met with a road accident, absented from parliament for over 03 months. The UNP deliberately avoided proposing leave for Pilapitiya, who thus lost his seat. The UNP then nominated Pilapitiya under the “chit” system of appointing MPs that had been made operative by the government. When the election petition was concluded in late 1980, Pilapitiya who was unseated by the Court ruling was not in parliament, argued the government. This MP Pilapitiya is an appointed MP, was the argument.

Yet, JRJ was in a dilemma as the Court ruling to hold a by-election had to be acceded to. Therefore, while deciding not to contest the by-election, a 3rd Amendment to the Constitution was brought to parliament, to accommodate the winning candidate in parliament as the Kalawana MP. This would have created an extra seat in parliament. A 05 member bench of judges with CJ Neville Samarakoon decided, the parliament alone cannot decide such change. Such change in the composition of the parliament which is an elected body of people’s representatives has to be endorsed by the people themselves. Therefore such change adopted by a 2/3 majority in parliament has to go before the people at a Referendum. JRJ was thus stumped out and he dropped that 3rd Amendment to the Constitution. He did not go for a Referendum for his 3rd Amendment.

It is thus clear, the 20A that calls for a change in how the parliament should be constituted with changes proposed by this electoral reform approved by the cabinet, cannot be made law by a 2/3 majority in parliament alone. It has to be approved by the people at a Referendum. It is therefore best for everyone to have this proposal approved by the cabinet to be made public, before it is even gazetted and brought before parliament. Anyway, this 20A is only said to take effect in the future, after the next election is held on the existing PR and preference vote system. It thus has no reason to be hurried on ego trips of political leaders. This can be taken up after a new parliament is elected, whenever an election is held.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 4
    5

    I do hope someone challenges Ranil’s 20A.
    Ranil always does something under hand, like the CFA then the 19A and now this. A curse to the whole nation.

    • 0
      1

      Good Article Kusal. Indeed the number of corrupt clowns in the Diyawenna Parliament should be reduced to 100 and NOT increased. So too the number of cabinet MP reduced to 10, but Mr Yahapalayanay has just appointed more corrupt clowns to the cabinet of clowns:

      Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena has appointed four Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) parliamentarians as Deputy Ministers on Wednesday evening. MPs Sanath Jayasuriya, Wijaya Dahanayake, Eric Weerawardena and Thilanga Sumathipala took oaths as Deputy Ministers at an event held at the Presidential Secretariat, the President’s Media Unit said.

      The real problem in the corrupt POLITICAL CULTURE, including vote buying by politicians and President Yahapalanaya.

      This corrupt GENERATION of politicians (we may talk of bi-partisan or cross party corruption), needs to be BANNED and prevented from contesting future elections in the Miracle of Modayas.

      Also educating the Moda Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim voter to use the ballot responsibly is the main challenge today..

  • 5
    2

    It’s best that constitutional changes related to composition of the parliament are referred to the people rather than forced on the people through political manipulation.

    The priority should be to resolve the political crisis facing the country right now. The president should dissolve the parliament promptly and let the people elect the government they deserve. 20 A deserves much more deliberation for people to understand its implications.

  • 7
    0

    Dear Kaushal

    Your arguments on the points raised by CaFFE and Mano Ganeshan are excellent, however do you think asking the people to make a choice at a referendum is practical?

    How do expect the simple ordinary people to understand the real issues involved if so called educated individuals in organizations like CaFFE and politicians like Mano Ganeshan (who thinks he is suitable to be President) have not got it right ?Even people like you have vastly different opinions. So how do you expect the common man to decide what is best for the Country on this issue through a referendum?

    Don’t you think it is best left to the Supreme Court to decide whether it is constitutional after considering all petitions which can be submitted on the matter, and inform Parliament which can then get on with it ?

    A referendum on this issue would be only a waste of time and money which we taxpayers can ill afford, in my humble opinion.

  • 3
    2

    Rubbish! No referendum is needed. Anyway let us leave it to the Supreme Court which knows its business.

  • 1
    5

    “”The irony was, he only wanted “20A” and did not have any serious stand on what electoral reforms should be in 20A””

    This sums up MI3..He has no idea what is going on, what needs to be done. He is an idiot and the most ineffective leader ever. He will go down like that in the SL political history

    • 2
      0

      Under a rock seems the best place for people who may comments like these.

      • 0
        1

        Sorry to hurt you, that is a perception shared by many who understand the current scenario.

  • 3
    0

    The idea of a referendum is very appealing as it will give the people a chance to decide for themselves. But how educated and concern are the people on electoral matters? If a referendum is called a vast majority will vote for the option dictates by their party or local MP. This is the sad state of our celebrated democracy. People have power but they are not interested in utilizing it for their best interests…

  • 2
    1

    I wonder how a purportedly ‘ Dharmishta’ constitution, designed to accommodate the whims, personal fancies and desires of JRJ and approved by a captive parliament , without even perfunctory approval in atleast outline at the preceding general elections (1977), could yet be considered sacrosanct in terms of the need for referenda to amend certain entrenched clauses! The big question is how many of the so-called people’s representatives in parliament understood the meaning and implications of what they voted for.

    There is no alternative to promulgating a constitution after the next general election, through the instrument of a ‘Constitution Commission of eminent persons’ and, widespread public consultations and approval by parliament by a two thirds majority. The major political parties should present their perspectives on a new constitution in outline at the soon-to-come General Elections in their respective manifestos and explain it to the people in campaign activities. We should not assume any longer that the people are fools and on them constitutions that become their burden or cross.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

  • 1
    0

    Over to our great Vellala Hero K A Sumanasekera(m) for his esteemed view on the 20th amendment

  • 0
    1

    As of now, the 20A appears to be a red herring.
    Sirisena only wants 20A brought before Parliament, debated and passed.
    He knows next to nothing on its mechanism or workings.
    All he wants is to go before the people and say I got the parties to pass the 20A. Whether good or bad, he does not care.

    Lets wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.