By Jayampathy Wickramaratne –

Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne PC

Today, 06 June, marks the 120th anniversary of Dr NM Perera‘s birth. NM was born in 1905, the year of the First Russian Revolution. He passed away on 14 August 1979, during the month progressives in Sri Lanka commemorate the 1953 Hartal, in which he played a significant role. This year also marks the 90^th anniversary of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party that NM and his comrades founded.   

NM was a multi-faceted man: the first leading man in a Sinhala film, “Rajakeeya Vickramaya”; captained Ananda College at the inaugural Battle of the Maroons against Nalanda in 1925; founding member and leader of Sri Lanka’s first political party; President of the Nondescripts Cricket Club (NCC); President of the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka; Leader of the Opposition in the first and third Parliaments under the 1946-47 Constitution; and Minister of Finance (1964 and 1970-75).

NM

He earned two doctorates from the London School of Economics – a PhD for his thesis on the Weimar Constitution of Germany, supervised by Prof. Harold Laski and a DSc for his comparative study of parliamentary procedures in the UK, USA, France and Germany, becoming the first Sri Lankan to receive a higher doctorate from the University of London. Laski thought that NM would make an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer, while Sir Ivor Jennings said that he would be an outstanding Labour Prime Minister. For Ajit Samaranayake, NM was “the best Prime Minister Sri Lanka never had.” Writing the Foreword to NM’s celebrated booklet, “A Critical Analysis of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka,” his comrade-in-arms, Dr Colvin R. De Silva, described him as an acknowledged authority on constitutional law, with his doctoral thesis cited as an authoritative source.

The purpose of this article is to explore how NM’s thinking on constitutional issues can be applied to the constitutional reform process that the current National People’s Power (NPP) government has committed itself to. The NPP is dominated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a Left-oriented party, and has members with roots in the traditional Left, including several who grew up in the LSSP and have strong emotional ties to NM’s memory.

Abolishing the Executive Presidency

It is not surprising that NM, the parliamentarian par excellence, so knowledgeable about parliamentary procedures worldwide, was a staunch defender of the parliamentary form of government. In a penetrating analysis of the 1978 Constitution, NM pointed out in his booklet that the parliamentary form of government had worked for thirty years in Sri Lanka with a degree of success that had surprised many Western observers. He warned: “The presidential system offers unlimited scope for wielding absolute powers, albeit for a limited period. But the taste of unlimited power grows with the feeding and the lust cannot be easily satiated.  It is a matter of regret that Sri Lanka that has amassed considerable experience in Parliamentary Government and has successfully overcome the teething troubles of the early period should now be thrown down the slope of constitutional confusion in the end jeopardizing democracy itself.”

If there were sceptics regarding the desirability of abolishing the presidential form of government, the actions of the two Rajapaksa brothers, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe, in recent times should have helped alleviate their concerns. Abolition was a major demand of the Aragalaya, which culminated in the peaceful overthrow of President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. It was one of the central planks of the NPP’s platform at the 2024 presidential election and of the JVP’s platform at all previous elections. The main party of the Opposition, Samagi Jana Balavegaya, as well as parties that primarily represent the Tamils, Muslims, and Hill Country Tamils, support abolition. It is only the Rajapaksa-controlled Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna that clearly stands for retaining the executive presidency.

Earlier attempts at abolition failed for various reasons. President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s Bill for a new constitution, which provided for abolition, came too close to the 2000 general election. The United National Party, which had previously expressed support, withdrew ostensibly due to a transitional provision allowing President Kumaratunga to complete her second presidential term despite the abolition. Those close to the process are aware that Kumaratunga offered to shorten her second term to one year, but the UNP leadership was unresponsive. Abolition was a significant demand of the forces that supported Maithripala Sirisena in 2015. However, after publicly pledging abolition, he signed a memorandum of understanding with the Jathika Hela Urumaya the following day, agreeing that no constitutional amendment requiring a referendum would be presented. The tension between President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe resulted in the breakdown of the Yahapalanaya Government’s constitutional reform process.

A constitutional settlement of the ethnic issue

The early Tamil demand was for guaranteed representation in the legislature. Tamils did not join the Kandyan chiefs in demanding federalism before the Donoughmore Commission. It was when the Tamil Congress failed to prevent the disenfranchisement of their Hill Country Tamil cousins that Chelvanayakam raised the demand for federalism, a demand that Tamils rejected at the 1952 elections, with Chelvanayakam losing his seat in KKS to a UNP candidate. Clearly, Tamils preferred sharing power in Colombo to regional autonomy. With Sinhala Only a virtual fait accompli after the two main parties of the South discarded parity of status for both languages, the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) swept the North and East at the 1956 elections.

With the Tamils initially preferring power-sharing at the centre to regional autonomy, it is not surprising that the Left thought that equality would ensure ethnic harmony. The Left opposed the disenfranchisement of Hill Country Tamils and stood for parity of status. NM and his comrades were vilified for their positions. Supporters of Philip Gunawardena, who had broken away from the LSSP, shouted “NM pataw Kochchi pataw, Philip pataw Sinha pataw” (NM’s supporters are Malayalis, Philip’s supporters are lion cubs) during a May Day procession.

Years later, after the conflict had escalated, NM said in his booklet, written a few months before his death: “The Lanka Sama Samaja Party had the worst of both worlds. The Sinhalese hounded us as anti-national in general, and anti-Sinhalese in particular. Our principled stand of parity of status for both languages drove us into the political wilderness.  The Tamils on the other hand treated us with suspicion. Our party was treated as mainly Sinhalese and therefore suspect in their eyes. Our past record of 20 years of consistent advocacy of fairness to the Tamil community and indeed to all minorities, inclusive of caste and creed, was conveniently ignored.”

NM was now convinced that regional autonomy was the answer to the conflict: “Unfortunately, by the time the pro-Sinhala leaders hobbled along, the young extremists had taken the lead in demanding a separate State. (…) What might have satisfied the Tamil community twenty years back cannot be adequate twenty years later. Other concessions along the lines of regional autonomy will have to be in the offing if healthy and harmonious relations are to be regained.”

Following his death, NM’s followers advanced his call for regional autonomy. At the All-Party Conference convened after the bitter experiences of July 1983, Colvin stated that the ethnic issue was “a problem of the Sri Lanka nation and state and not a problem of just this community or that community.” While reaffirming the LSSP’s position that Sri Lanka must remain a single country with a single state, he emphasised that with Tamils minority living in considerable numbers in a contiguous territory, the state as presently organised does not serve the purposes it should serve, especially in the field of equality of status in relation to the state, the nation and the government. The Left supported the Thirteenth Amendment in principle. More than 200 leftists, including Vijaya Kumaratunga, paid the price with their lives for doing so, 25 of whom were Samasamajists.

An All-Party Representative Committee (APRC), appointed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa and chaired by LSSP Minister Tissa Vitarana, convened from 2006 to 2009. Sinhala nationalist parties walked out at various stages, but the SLFP, the main party in the government, remained. APRC Chairman Tissa Vitarana presented a summary of its proposals to the President in 2009. The APRC proposed extensive devolution within a unitary state, with power-sharing at the centre.

Dr. Colin Irwin of the University of Liverpool, with extensive experience in conducting opinion polls in conflict zones, assessed the APRC proposals against public opinion in March 2009, just three months before the end of the war. In March 2010, nine months after the war ended, the same proposals were reevaluated, this time with a larger sample that included participants from the Northern Province. Support among Tamils, Muslims, and Hill Country Tamils was overwhelming. Contrary to the myth propagated by opponents that the Sinhalese do not favour devolution, 59% found the APRC proposals at least ‘acceptable’ three months before the end of the war, at a time when defeat was looming for the LTTE. One year later, the figure had risen to as much as 80%.

In 2016, as part of the constitutional reform process, Lal Wijenayake, a long-time Samasamajist, headed the Public Representations Committee. Based on the extensive public consultations it had, the committee recommended substantial and meaningful devolution. Dr Harini Amarasuriya, the present Prime Minister, was a member of the committee.

A new constitution

In its presidential election manifesto, the NPP promised a new constitution under which the executive presidency would be abolished. Powers will be devolved to local authorities, districts and provinces, and all communities will have a share in governance.

Government spokespersons have indicated that a constitutional reform process will commence in the second half of President Dissanayake’s term. It would be wise not to delay reform. Constitutional reform involves broad consultations and dialogue. Experience suggests that extensive reform is more likely to succeed when undertaken early, rather than later, when other issues may arise. While the government may be confident in retaining its two-thirds majority, a new constitution also requires approval via a referendum. A referendum in the latter half of a government’s term will likely focus more on its performance than on the new constitution. With their eyes set on the next elections, Opposition parties are more likely to act as spoilers.

The NPP faced setbacks at the local elections. Most voters who distanced themselves from it seem to be Sinhala nationalists previously aligned with the Rajapaksas. There is a lesson for the NPP in the results from the North and East. The release of lands, the reopening of roads, and promises to return confiscated jewellery did not entice the Tamils. The ITAK’s subtle message, “The country to Anura, the village for us”, cleverly crafted by Sumanthiran, truly meant “Whoever rules in Colombo, we must rule our own areas,” and resonated well with Tamil voters. One hopes that the NPP’s setbacks will not place it on the defensive concerning constitutional reform.

Failure on the part of the government will almost certainly strengthen the political Right. Although the SJB had the opportunity to position itself as a social-democratic alternative championing social justice, it has miserably failed to do so. The UNP lurks in the shadows, hoping for a comeback. The SLPP adheres to its rightist, Sinhala nationalist positions. Several rightist think tanks have sprung up.

The Left may be weaker and fragmented; nevertheless, the relevance and need for a Left alternative persist. If the LSSP can celebrate its 90th anniversary as a reunited party, that could pave the way for a stronger and united Left as well. Such a development would be the best way to honour NM and other pioneering leaders of the Left.