Chandrika ties Opposition's hands

By Nirupama Subramanian

COLOMBO, JULY 11. In proroguing Parliament and announcing a referendum, the Sri Lankan President, Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga, has not only disarmed the Opposition, but virtually tied their hands.

The United National Party (UNP) and other opposition parties had on Tuesday submitted a letter to the Speaker asking him to schedule the debate on a no-confidence motion against the Government for next week. The letter was signed by 115 members of the 225-member House.

The fear in the Opposition ranks till yesterday was that the Government would do its best to postpone the debate to August. That would enable the President to prorogue Parliament for the maximum stipulated period of two months, which would safely take her through to October, when she could legally dissolve the House.

It was not expected that she would prorogue Parliament immediately, and even less so that she would announce a referendum for a new Constitution.

The wording of the question for the referendum, asking the people if they are agreeable to the proposal that ``the country needs a new Constitution which is nationally important and an essential requirement'', is such as to make it difficult for the Opposition parties to campaign against it. Almost everyone in Sri Lanka agree that the 1978 Constitution - that is in operation today - gives the President unbelievable powers and needs to be replaced by a less authoritarian document. Indeed, it is this Constitution that empowered Ms. Kumaratunga to serve last night's political ace.

It is clear that the new Constitution referred to in the question is none other than the Constitution Bill that her Government presented in Parliament in August 2000 and withdrew when it sensed it would be defeated.

In the campaign leading up to the August 21 referendum, Ms. Kumaratunga is likely to dwell less on the devolution and conflict-resolution possibilities of a new Constitution, as these would be controversial, and more on the possibilities of electoral reforms.

She is likely to argue that the present system of proportional representation gives undue leverage to smaller parties, whose demands paralyse the functioning of the Government.

The communique from the President's office giving reasons for the decision to prorogue Parliament and hold the referendum said as much. It said that although the People's Alliance had won two- thirds of the seats in the 1994 and 2000 elections, that mandate was not ``properly'' reflected in the composition of Parliament. ``It has been difficult to find solutions for the problems faced by the people as a result of the distortion caused by the improper reflection of your mandate in Parliament. Moreover, political factions and cliques who seek to further their narrow and self-centred motives are attempting to gain an undue advantage by exploiting the situation,'' it said.

The argument might go down well with the Sinhala majority community, that, irrespective of its political loyalties, sees the current political crisis in Sri Lanka as precipitated by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress that walked out of the Government, reducing it to a minority.

For its part, the Opposition might attempt to whip up a campaign against the referendum as a ploy by the Government to bring back the draft new Constitution that was withdrawn from Parliament last year in the face of protests by the Buddhist clergy and Sinhala hardliners.

The Opposition might also campaign that the Government is seeking to change the Constitution only to ensure its own survival.

The referendum poses a big dilemma for the Tamil parties that supported the no-confidence motion against the Government, but who are not in principle opposed to a new Constitution that promises devolution.

But their decisions are more likely to be influenced by the fact that a new Constitution, irrespective of the extent of devolution it offers, would be unacceptable to the LTTE for the simple reason that it was not consulted on it. In any case, the LTTE had rejected the draft new Constitution even as it was being drawn up.

One possible scenario if Ms. Kumaratunga wins the referendum, is that she might seek to convert Parliament into a Constituent Assembly, where a simple majority, instead of the two-thirds required in Parliament, can change the Constitution.

She might use this method to enact the 2000 Constitution Bill despite the fact that political parties, including Tamil parties, are divided on it and are not in agreement with many of its proposals.

Sri Lanka's only other referendum was held in 1982 by the late President, J.R. Jayewardene, on extending the life of the then Parliament by an additional full term. The Sri Lankan parliament has also been prorogued just once before, when the former President, Premadasa, resorted to the measure to buy time when his opponents were planning an impeachment motion against him.

This is the first time the two will happen together, and the fact that both are perceived as a move by a cornered Government to subvert Parliament and democracy could give rise to great political and civil unrest in the coming weeks.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Agra, just a beginning