Preamble
The Constitutions and their subsequent
amendments since Independence have progressively regressed into ones purely to
suit the Government in power at the cost of democracy and will of the people. Even
the requirement of a 2/3 majority for amendments were abused by the buying of
votes for positions and money, questioning the suitability of those elected to
Parliament and also the fitness of the elected representatives and their
Governments to govern, where the will of the people was subservient to the will
of the 2/3 members in Parliament voting for the amendments. Subsequent ruling
cabals ensured that both Constitutional amendments and new Constitutions were
designed for their longevity, rather the basic purpose for which the
Constitution is written or interpreted by Law.
Firstly it is with regret that a
majority of MPs in the current parliament were themselves responsible for some
of the amendments passed flouting all democratic traditions, such as the now
much maligned 18th Amendment. It is the case of asking the Fox how
to protect the hen house from Foxes!
It is therefore important that the
people directly, present their views on what MUST be enshrined in the Constitution
so that there is at least a chance that the final draft before the House, will
reflect society’s requirements, and not merely a smoke and mirrors attempt at
fooling the masses yet again.
Post-Independence
History
Sri Lanka’s recent history has been
dogged by conflict in both the North and South, that has resulted in over
250,000 deaths directly attributed to them, ostensibly for different reasons
but essentially the same, when one reduces it to the basics, which is this: “The
needs and aspirations of a significant minority (disaffected students are also
a minority) have been ignored, leaving open their grievances ripe for
exploitation, by an opportunistic few”
It is also now commonly accepted that
most legislation since independence took the Country backwards instead of
forwards, in an attempt to correct perceived flaws in previous Constitutions
and Constitutional Amendments, which have actually resulted in barriers to
economic development, resulting in the state of the nation today. It is ironic
that the only true contribution to the growth in the recent past, of the US$80B
inward remittances in the last 15 years has had no assistance from any
amendment in the Constitution, and has been generated (though at a high social
cost) independently of Government!
In short Government has been the reason
for slow growth, and the ruination of the Economy. Putting it simply, without
elected government and ONLY the enforcement of the rule of laws already in
place would have been sufficient to have taken Sri Lanka to the level of high
GDP by this stage.
The change in the language policy, for
purely political gain, immediately stopped the fluency of the Citizenry in
English, which is seen as a severe impediment to our Global contribution today.
Even our citizens in foreign lands would have had a chance of higher earnings
with such fluency.
The increasing employment in the Public
Service, not out of need, but out of pure Political Expediency has saddled the
State to an unimaginable degree, that has both impacted the efficiency of the
Public Service, but more importantly deprived the Private Sector of the needed
labor to grow. A country with 250,000 vacancies in the private sector, with NO
takers is evidence of this treachery. Ironically, politicians have fooled the
people into believing that the provision of Govt. jobs is a good thing and take
credit for increasing employment in this sphere! With a significant minority
having such an opinion, it is still used for political gain, making it very
difficult to change public perceptions.
The option of increasing the wages
currently offered to fill vacancies will result in the whole payroll structure having
to be revised upwards, and so the alternative is to close the businesses and
move to Countries where there is labor at lower rates.
The two examples above are shown merely
to illustrate a point, that unless old attitudes are replaced in their
entirety, a new Constitution will merely go the way of the old, adding to the
woes instead of being visionary and relevant to the times.
Stakeholders
whose opinions are essential
There are arguments that the
Constitution MUST provide guarantees for certain minority groups, to protect
them from abuse by the majority. I completely disagree with the logic there.
Actually only the citizen’s rights should be enshrined, and all are entitled to
the same rights, be they young, old, women, racial groups, castes, religion,
sexual orientation and disabled to name a few.
So for example, this means that
reasonable attempts within the means of rationality, must enable disabled
people to enjoy the benefits that normal people do. It is not the Constitution
that must determine that a certain size of location provide disabled access, or
Companies with certain employee numbers that is left to Legislation which can
from time to time, be amended according to need and economic strength of the society.
This logic should hold true for language rights too without having it enshrined
in the Constitution.
So for example when at present we show
Buses with destination in three languages, legislation may deem it more
practical that it be ONLY in English, so that if the letters are sufficiently
large, they can be seem from a far, assisting those commuters in identifying
location, more than at present. This compromise may be more acceptable to all
instead of ONLY showing it in Sinhala. The current system of having it in all
three DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE of having a destination board! It cannot be
read from afar making it truly worthless! (Legislation made by those who don't travel in buses)
A significant stakeholder for whom the
Constitution is relevant, as it is being drafted with their interests at heart
(or it should) Youth born after 1990, who are now coming up to 26 and who would
be 76 or less in 50 years when it is mature. Currently their needs are not
included, as there is NO mechanism of identifying them and including them, as
this age group has few who are able to communicate this effectively, partly due
to relative immaturity of our education system in developing these skills
pertaining to civic rights and obligations.
The significance of this need is LOST on
those who are drafting the Constitution, as they are not as tech savvy as this
new generation, and are unable to understand what it is that the future
generation wants. IN them there is NO racial, caste, language, political
divisiveness.
What does that mean? There is NO NEED in
the Constitution to look at the current flaws in the system and correct them,
as it is a completely new concept, even devoid of political parties. The two
party politics does not mean a hill of beans for the youth of today, and in
fact it has been the bane of our legacy, which I have shown above to have
caused such misery in Sri Lanka. What is relevant in the UK is not necessarily
relevant here.
Our youth want a trusted person to send
to parliament, not a person from a particular political party. It is something
only the PM understands at present, and one of the main planks of the National
Government Concept, that NO OTHER Country on earth has adopted. Hurrah for Sri
Lanka to be the first. It is time that the Constitution reflects that and
permits people to seek office on their own merits, to represent their
Constituency as being the person most likely to assist in ensuring his
electorate is key in his personal priority in parliament.
New
Technology
The new technology embraced by youth
MUST be taken account of in all matters of Constitution making, as it is going
to have significant influence on the way we live, vote, make decisions, and
behave towards our fellow citizens.
After all what is the Constitution for?
It is simply a set of rules by which the Country is governed. In exceptional conditions
in order to live amicably with our fellow nations, the Country is subservient
to International Treaties it signs such as the UN Charter, which permit
interference in our affairs, if it is shown that we have broken conditions of
that, and we are sometimes bound by external courts, such as the ICC, to which
Sri Lanka is currently not a signatory, but should be soon.
We must go back to basics here and set
up the rules as it relates to the next 50 years, where all voting will be
electronic from our finger print or more sophisticated identification mode,
smart phones where we can vote on any legislation from any part of the world,
if we are citizens of Sri Lanka, a privilege NOT currently allowed to the 2.5M
Sri Lankan citizens living overseas.
These are sea changes in procedures,
that are not even thought about by island mentality legal fossils currently in
charge of drafting. We can therefore (all citizens) vote on each bill, not the
MP, and ensure that the legislation is far more democratic than at present
where only partisan self-interest is enacted!
Conclusion
It is quite clear from the aforementioned
preamble, that we should NOT merely prepare a Constitution to correct the
mistakes of the past, and tick off one by one once we have done so, in the belief
that all past mistakes have been corrected, so the new Constitution will be
better than all that have gone before.
It is time for a complete re-write and
for this task, get the best and brightest of the Nation under age 25 to write
it, and it can be amended by those with knowledge to cover the shortfall that
ensures the flaws of this draft are corrected.
In this way, the New
Constitution, will be a document in keeping with the times, presented by those
who will have to live under it for their lifetime, fully corrected to take
account of past fundamental errors, and be a visionary document enshrining the ONLY
3 main ingredients for life, clean water, clean air and clean food. This is the
ONLY route for the survival of this Island into the next century.