4 July, 2022

Blog

Fifty Years As A Republic: The Making Of The 1972 Constitution

By Jayampathy Wickramaratne

Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne PC

This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of Sri Lanka becoming a republic. We observe the anniversary at a time when the large majority of our people are yearning for comprehensive constitutional reform – “system change”, as they put it. Many believe that, after the failure of the first and second republican constitutions, the time is right for the Third Republic.

This article in three parts is based on a paper that I contributed to a collection of essays titled “Sirimavo”, published by the Bandaranaike Museum Committee in 2010. When Sunethra Bandaranaike invited me to contribute an essay on the 1972 Constitution, I told her that I would be unable to say much good about it. This, I explained, was despite Dr Colvin R. De Silva, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs of the United Front government who steered the constitution-making process, being a former leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party to which I belonged and my senior in several fundamental rights cases beginning with Palihawadana v. Attorney-General (Job Bank Case), the first fundamental rights case under the 1978 Constitution. “You can write anything”, Sunethra assured me. My friend Tissa Jayatillaka edited the publication.

Replacing the Soulbury Constitution

The Independence Constitution of 1947, popularly known as the Soulbury Constitution, conferred dominion on Ceylon. The Governor-General was appointed by the British sovereign. The Parliament of Ceylon consisted of the King/Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Executive power continued to be vested in the Crown and was exercised by the Governor-General. The Cabinet of Ministers was charged with the general direction and control of the government and was collectively responsible to Parliament. The form of government was in the Westminster model, which meant that the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Prime Minister. By the oath of allegiance, Senators, Members of Parliament, and all holders of office, including the Prime Minister, Ministers and heads of departments and judicial officers, swore to ‘be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King/Queen.

The first move towards making Ceylon a Republic was made by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who, on becoming Prime Minister in 1956, informed the other governments of the British Commonwealth of Ceylon’s intention to become a Republic within the Commonwealth. A Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament on the revision of the Constitution accepted the principle of establishing a Republic within the Commonwealth. It was also agreed that the parliamentary form of government would continue with the President being a constitutional head of state. The President and the Vice-President would be elected by the legislature, fundamental rights recognized, appeals to the Privy Council abolished, and a court established to adjudicate constitutional matters and hear appeals from the Supreme Court.

Although sub-section 4 of section 29 of the 1947 Constitution provided that ‘in the exercise of its powers under this section, Parliament may amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order, or of any other Order of Her Majesty in Council in its application to the Island’, the question whether Parliament could replace the British sovereign who was a source of the legal authority of the Constitution and a constituent part of Parliament had been raised, among others, by J.A.L. Cooray in his Review of the Constitution. The Privy Council stated in Ibralebbe v The Queen (65 NLR 433, 443) that the reservations specified in section 29 were ‘fundamental’ and in Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe that section 29 (2) was ‘unalterable under the Constitution’(66 NLR 73, 78). Although obiter (not essential for the decision), these statements gave support to a move initiated by the Left parties towards a new ‘homegrown’ or ‘autochthonous’ Constitution with a complete legal break from the existing constitutional order in preference to amending the Constitution. There was also a definite trend in the Commonwealth towards enacting ‘homegrown’ constitutions to replace those given by the United Kingdom.

The Constituent Assembly route

It was this trend towards and desire for an autochthonous constitution that led the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Communist Party (CP) to not support the call of the 1965 government of Dudley Senanayake of the United National Party (UNP) to re-establish the Joint Select Committee on the Revision of the Constitution. The SLFP, LSSP and CP which later combined to form the United Front (UF) whilst declining to serve on the Joint Select Committee proposed that a Constituent Assembly be set up to adopt and enact a new constitution.

At the general election of May 1970, the UF, as reflected in its manifesto, sought from the electorate a mandate to permit the Members of Parliament to function simultaneously as a Constituent Assembly. The Assembly would draft, adopt and operate a new constitution, the primary objective of which was to make the country a free, sovereign and independent republic dedicated to the realization of a socialist democracy that would guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens.

At the above-referenced general election, 84.9% of the voters, a significantly high percentage even for an electorate known for its enthusiastic participation in elections, exercised their franchise. The UF won 116 out of 151 seats on offer but obtained 48.8% of the total votes cast. With the support of the six nominated members and the two independent members who won their seats with the help of the UF, the latter now commanded 124 seats in the 157-member Parliament. The UNP was down to 17 seats. The Federal Party (FP) won 13 seats while Tamil Congress (TC) won 03.

The Governor-General, in the course of delivering the first Throne Speech of the new Parliament, called upon the Members of Parliament to form a Constituent Assembly in keeping with the mandate asked for and given by the people at the general election. That the Address of Thanks to the Throne Speech was passed without a division is also important.

On 11 July 1970, Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike wrote to all members of the House of Representatives to invite them for a meeting to be held on 19 July 1970 to consider and adopt a resolution for constituting themselves into a Constituent Assembly. The meeting was to be held at the Navarangahala, the newly constructed auditorium of Royal College, Colombo and not in the chamber of the House of Representatives, signifying the intention of the UF to make a complete break from the 1947 Constitution. Dr Colvin R. de Silva, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, emphasized that what was contemplated was not an attempt to create a new superstructure on an old foundation.

It is a matter of great significance that all political parties represented in Parliament participated in the formation of the Constituent Assembly on 19 July 1970.

J.R. Jayewardene, the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the UNP, joining the debate on the resolution to set up a Constituent Assembly, reminded the UF that it had a mandate only from less than 50% of the people. Nevertheless, if both sides of the legislature, the victors and the vanquished, agreed to make common cause in enacting a new basic law through a legal revolution, that new law, if accepted by the people, will become the full expression of the hopes, desires and aspirations of the present generation.

Dharmalingam of the FP, while questioning the need to go outside the existing Constitution, noted: “We are making common cause with you in enacting a new Constitution not as a vanquished people but as the representatives of a people who have consistently at successive elections since 1956 given us a mandate to change the present Constitution which has been the source of all evil to the Tamil people.”

The leader of the FP, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, urged the Assembly to reach common ground on controversial issues and quoted Jawaharlal Nehru in support: “We shall go to the Constituent Assembly with the fixed determination of finding a common basis for agreement on all controversial issues.”

Anandasangaree, speaking on behalf of the TC, stated that his party did not wish to be a stumbling block but requested the Government to be fair and adopt the new Constitution unanimously.

Indicating the acceptance of the Constituent Assembly route towards the adoption of a new constitution by all political parties, the proposed resolution to form the Constituent Assembly was unanimously passed on 21 July 1970.

It is significant that all political parties represented in Parliament participated in the formation of the Constituent Assembly, thus giving legitimacy to the process. However, the Constitution that the Constituent Assembly adopted lacked similar legitimacy. The Federal Party discontinued participation after the Assembly decided to make Sinhala the only official language. The United National Party voted against the Constitution. With all political parties agreeing on the Constituent Assembly process, it was a unique opportunity to adopt a constitution that had the support of the people at large. But Assembly proceedings show that the United Front, which had a two-thirds majority but had received a little less than 50% of the popular vote, imposed a constitution of its choice. The Constitution also extended the term of the legislature by two years which had a chilling effect on Sri Lankan democracy. There is certainly a lot to learn from the 1970-72 reform process.

Retaining the parliamentary form of government

Whilst the desire of the UF was to make a complete break from the Soulbury Constitution modelled on the British system, it nevertheless considered the Westminster model of parliamentary government to be suitable for Sri Lanka.

However, J.R. Jayewardene proposed the introduction of an executive presidency, a proposal opposed even by Dudley Senanayake, a former prime minister and the leader of the UNP. Interestingly though, Jayewardene was to have the last word.  After he was elected Prime Minister in 1977, the UNP he led having obtained an unprecedented five-sixths majority in Parliament, Jayewardene introduced the executive presidency through the Second Amendment to the 1972 Constitution. He followed it up with the Second Republican Constitution of 1978, based on an executive presidency sans any checks and balances usually found in countries with a presidential form of government.

It is salutary, in the above context, to recall the words and sentiments expressed by Sirimavo Bandaranaike during the debate on the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “The effect of this amendment is to place the President above the National State Assembly. Above the law and above the courts, thereby creating a concentration of State power in one person, whoever he might be. This has happened in other countries before, and history is full of examples of the disastrous consequences that came upon such nations that changed their Constitutions by giving one man too much power. (…) We oppose this Bill firmly and unequivocally. It will set our country on the road to dictatorship and there will be no turning back. This Bill will mark the end of democracy in Sri Lanka, as the late Dudley Senanayake realized when these same ideas were put to him in the United National Party.”

Dr De Silva warned against the danger of counterposing the Prime Minister chosen by the people who are sovereign against a President who is directly elected: “Let me put it directly and more strongly. You have the Prime Minister chosen by the people who are sovereign. Then, if you have a President, chosen also by the sovereign people directly through the exercise of a similar franchise, you have at the heart and apex of the State two powers counterposed to each other, each drawing its power from the same source, the sovereign people, but each drawing the power independent of the other.” No Constitution will be able to define adequately and satisfactorily the relationship between the two, he explained.

(Next: Part II: A Majoritarian Constitution)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 6
    1

    A crucial observation, true, valid and of significance, is that the 1972 Constitution the lacked a legitimacy the Constituent Assembly had.
    Tamils have been governed by the Sinhalese parties under an illegitimate Constitution, ever since. ( That establishes that the 1978 Constitution too lacked legitimacy, logically speaking.)

    • 7
      1

      Even though the conversion of dominion status of Ceylon to Republic of Sri Lanka looks a natural evolution, it was a crafty and insidious move. Tamils were deprived of the means of a legal recourse, instantaneously.

      • 0
        1

        What was crafty or insidious about the country freeing itself of the clutches of the empire?

  • 4
    0

    The Presidency should be abrogated. In a constitutional set up and underdeveloped governing capability of a country such as ours, it only brings confusion and turmoil.

    Our prime ministers traditionally have greater networking and interactivity capacity with the rest of the ministers. Our presidents only came about with the idea of sitting high like an executive monarch. However, the Queen of the Soulbury constitution was mostly a figure head…a ceremonial role, and greatest powers lay with the Prime Minister and cabinet of ministers (greater democracy with some acknowledgement towards the Queen, with probably some tithe towards the crown, and finance towards the commonwealth).

    Jayawardena tried to expedite development through executive presidency, but lacked the necessary skill and intellect to install the structure to make the capitalized economy work across the board – auditing and taxation were inadequate, if at all. Parliament needed greater democratic consensus to create and implement their ideas, but they were stilted and stifled with this executive. And we all know what Gotabaya did with the executive. Yet again, democratic consensus was stilted and stifled, but at a far greater levels this time. The results are glaring!

    • 3
      0

      The executive presidency was also installed to regulate the powers of the provincial councils and to have executive command of the military. These can be delegated to the 21st amendment for the prime minister, ministers, and any of the councils to democratically handle. Ceremonious positions are inessential, redundant, and expensive to keep in this day and age.

      Chandrika recently spoke about creating a Constitutional Council and Council of State of non-partisan persons of high-intellectual capability to keep checks and balances on all of parliament, especially the leader. She suggested that the younger segments of the population especially those from the Aragalaya should fit well into these consultancy roles. These Councils cannot be overwritten by the leader or any of the parliament. Excellent suggestions by her – complex, but essential for democracy.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.