It was no easy task to compile this. Only a handful ordinary citizens would have the expertise to search for this information online, or elsewhere. There is no easy record retrieval of the President’s attendance in Parliament on its official website. But what is immediately obvious when the scattered media reports are taken as a whole is that the 18th Amendment has in no way at all contributed to a more accountable Executive. ”

Excerpt from ‘Months after the 18th Amendment: Is the Executive really more accountable to Parliament?’, http://groundviews.org/2011/06/11/months-after-the-18th-amendment-is-the-executive-really-more-accountable-to-parliament/

President JRJ was swept into power in 1977 after a period of hard economic conditions and this resulted in a protest vote where the voter turn out was approximately 80% of the registered voters and the result was astounding 5/6th majority in parliament. The economic conditions necessitated more power to bring about drastic changes sought by the people. The result was in the shape of an all powerful president with tentacles extending to all sectors of the country, a monster recognised only in 1982, when late President JRJ decided to extend the life of parliament by a referendum. Executive action of the UNP regime was able to annul a Judgement of the Court of Appeal, concerning Late Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike, through an act of parliament, a clear encroachment on the judicial independence. It is almost 60+ years since we gained independence still the governance of the country is being experimented. It is rather the style of governance that is most needed not the constitutions. The constitution is meant to consolidate the power base of the ruling regimes in the past.

It was very regrettable indeed that Government willingly kept the institutions that came under 17th Amendment in limbo, which was at the time of its adoption, was considered to be an exercise in good governance, as had been accepted by all the political parties. According to Rohan Edirisinghe, lecturer in constitutional law, the implementation of the 17th Amendment would have strengthened the sovereignty of the people as had been affirmed by the Supreme Court when it delivered its judgment on the 17the Amendment. (refer – interview by Sanjana Haththotuwa on YATV ). This argument is meant to debunk the theory advanced by Prof. GL Peiris that 17th Amendment violated the sovereignty of the people.

Let us ponder for a moment the process of constitutional making in India. India has made mammoth strides in economic and social development and is on the path to becoming a super power. The Constitution of India was drafted through a process of a Constituent Assembly (CA) which comprised elected members of the provincial assemblies. The CA comprised leading political figures of the caliber of Jawaharlal Nehru, C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Nalini Ranjan Ghosh. There was adequate representation of members of the scheduled classes. The minorities such as Anglo-Indian community, the Parsis, and the Gorkha community too represented at CA. There were also prominent jurists like Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, B. R. Ambedkar, Benegal Narsing Rau and K. M. Munshi, Ganesh Mavlankar. The interests of the women were represented by leading female activists such as Sarojini Naidu, Hansa Mehta, Durgabai Deshmukh and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. Before the constitution was officially adopted there were sessions open to the public for 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the constitution. After many deliberations and some modifications, the 308 members of the Assembly signed two hand-written copies of the document on 24 January 1950. Two days later, the dream of adopting a unique constitution was realized. There have been around 100+ amendments to the Constitution of India since it was enacted 60 years ago.

In the year 2000, the Government of India, constituted the National Commission to Review the Working the Constitution to make suitable recommendations. The resolution to constitute the National Commission to Review the Working the Constitution says that it “shall consist of a whole-time Chairperson who shall be a person of distinction with knowledge and expertise of constitutional issues and in the working of the democratic institutions of the nation.

It was further stipulated that besides the Chairperson, the Commission shall have not more than ten other Members who shall be selected on the basis of their proven expertise and knowledge in the field of constitutional law, economics, politics, law, sociology, political science and other relevant subjects. The Commission shall have a Secretary of the status of a Secretary to the Government of India to assist the Commission”. The terms of the reference was to “examine, in the light of the experience of the past 50 years, as to how best the Constitution can respond to the changing needs of efficient, smooth and effective system of governance and socio-economic development of modern India within the framework of parliamentary democracy and to recommend changes, if any, that are required in the provisions of the Constitution without interfering with its basic structure or features.”. This is a clear people friendly attempt by the Indian Government to review the constitution not just to change it, but to look into the working of the constitution. How nice, legitimate and democratic was the process!.

Srinath Fernando is a Freelance Journalist and a Political Lobbying & Government Relations Consultant.

@Pandukabaya, well said and we agree.

Yes, it is quite true that the Island had misrepresented Dr Dhanapala which is what I also said earlier. But my post and several before) were based on a number of further conclusions instead of merely accusing the media of selective and erroneous reporting. One, that a submission of this nature was unwise before a political tribunal as the LLRC and that Dr Dhanapala should have been prepared for media misrepresentation and gone ready for that. Two, that to have been surprised and disappointed at the Island coverage after three, four days (did he expect such statements attributed to him to pass bye without comment ?) and then say that he is waiting for transcripts showed that he was not sure at what he himself had said. Third, that he should have issued a formal demand for a correction without letting the matter rest for three, four days. Fourth, that, his praise of the Commissioners, in particular the Chair who was responsible for the failure of the Udalagama Commission, was surprising, even given the allowance that we may make for the niceties of these ocassions.

The remaining underlying question was why these people waste time in going before such Commissions as if expecting good to come out of it? Have’nt we learned anything better during the past years?

My point was also that the nature of the our interactions need to change with those who are all out to destroy our systems. Though sites such as Groundviews do a good function at a time when the mainstream media is under pressure, many people do not access these sites and are not familiar to converse in a language as English. So, the lasting impression is what is conveyed through the print newspapers and the electronic media. This is what makes opinion – UNFORTUNATELY! The initial reporting of Dr Dhanapala’s submission in the Island and its repeated publication yesterday is what will stick in most peoples’ minds. This has been the naure of propaganda by which the government has been successful in turning pubic opinion to its side. We need to directly challenge the mainstream media to publish corrections, to acknowledge misreporting and to take the media before its own disciplinary forums to publicise the matter. This will make the media sit up. Getting on a high horse or taking the moral high ground when one is misrepresented may be satisfying but not very fulfilling.

@ Pandukabaya,

“Today, the Island has published a follow-up to this first news item, reproducing the relevant transcripsts from the oral hearings before the LLRC where Dr Dhanapala had called for a reform of the laws of war to cater for situations where govt forces fight non state actors such as the LTTE. Both in his written submission as well as in his oral answers, the stress on civilian protections is nothing compared to the total emphasis on the need for reform of humanitarian law. Was such a submission, before a politically motivated tribunal such as the LLRC, wise, Sir?”

See our response to the Island story here.

Thank you for your comments. I believe that first of all, change has to take place within ourselves, in the way that we think and act. For example, for many, the media is responsible for many of the problems that we face. But I find this critique to be onesided even on a site such as Groundviews.

It is interesting that critiques never touch on the failures of intellectuals too to stand up, to make a difference.

The media is a easy hit. One good example of media misdeameanours is perhaps the manner in which the Island ‘misquoted’ ex-UN diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala’s submissions to the LLRC, which continues to be cited, most recently in an article written by Dr Rajan Hoole. But, as i have said repeatedly, the Island was never called upon to retract from that story by Dr Dhanapala which, if it had been done, would have cleared many of the wrong perceptions at the start. Today, the Island has published a follow-up to this first news item, reproducing the relevant transcripsts from the oral hearings before the LLRC where Dr Dhanapala had called for a reform of the laws of war to cater for situations where govt forces fight non state actors such as the LTTE.

Both in his written submission as well as in his oral answers, the stress on civilian protections is nothing compared to the total emphasis on the need for reform of humanitarian law. Was such a submission, before a politically motivated tribunal such as the LLRC, wise, Sir?

What about all the other intellectuals who stayed quiet when Tissanaiayagam was accused and sentenced? When judges were coerced to give judgments in a particular way? When we had a former Chief Justice throwing out international human rights law in the Singarasa decision four years back and intellectuals were mum for fear of contempt? Why were bodies like the Civil Rights Movement silent for the better part of this decade, apart from issuing occassional – and useless- statements? Why were jurists and retired judges silent when a former Chief Justice ran roughshod over the judiciary and what we were taught at law school was trampled under in the court room? Why are these people silent now when injustice is so obviously apparent against former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka? Are they guilty of abandoning principle due to the personality?

At least in the media, journalists have died for the truth. Lasantha was one example. Many continue to speak out bravely despite the threats and dangers. As commented upon recently by a columnist in the Sunday Leader, some of the bravest are women; Kishali Pinto Jayawardene(Sunday Times), Frederica Jansz (Sunday Leader), Shanie (Island) and Tisaranee Gunesekera (Sunday Leader). These women should make many men ashamed of themselves. They have not allowed even vile abuse directed at them, to stop them, including attacks based on the fact that they are women.

On the other hand, has a single intellectual braved the government the way that some writers have done and are still doing? Have they at least stood up to loose their jobs when the Vice Chancellors of their Universities came out in support of the president or when their Universities conferred doctorates on the president, his brother and the IGP?

Criticisms must be applied fairly and across the board, not selectively. Perhaps organisations such as the University Teachers for Human Rights (UTHR) of which Dr Hoole is a prominent member, should devote its next Report to a critique of intellectual society in Sri Lanka as being also responsible for the mess in which we find ourself? This would be very pertinent as the UTHR was formed by university teachers itself!

This would be a good contribution to the self critique that we should engage in FIRST without talking superficially of demonstrations and the like. Otherwise demonstrations, like what happened over Lasantha’s death, which I also attended, would be just a political sideshow! I was ashamed of myself for having gone for that when seeing the way that it was captured by vested interests. Let me say that after that experience, I would be very shy to attend another demonstration again! Maybe I will abandon my law and take to independent journalism! Advice welcome!

One of the main reason for this is the ELECTORAL SYSTEM that we have in Sri Lanka.

The MULTI PARTY PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM with the District as the electorate.

Because of this system A MP (member of parliament) has NO representative value. That is he is not going to lose his electorate if he does something stupid.

This system is what keeps politicans in power election after election and this is exactly what needs to be changed.

Also VOTING MUST BE MADE COMPULSORY and the voting age should be 21.

Till 21 people MUST learn vocational skill and part take in the ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY.