Daily Mirror – Latest news and headlines about Sri Lanka

Can voters trust politicians’ promises?

The promises of constitution making or constitutional amendments are nothing new in Sri Lankan politics

Sri Lanka is also polarized politically, making building consensus between the parties a monumental task

Election season is just around the corner. An abundance of promises, political grandeur and conspiracy theories are only normal in the coming period. The trend is already visible. The political literacy of the people who ultimately decide is more important than ever in this day and age to sort the truth out of the mess so that informed decisions can be made when voting.

Another broken promise?

Once again, political leaders are making promises for constitutional changes or the creation of a new constitution. It is time again to think about such promises with common sense. Good and transparent governance requires strong constitutional provisions.

Commitments for changes to the existing Constitution or the creation of a new Constitution have always been heard from the political stage, at least since 1994. Yet nothing substantial has materialized since then, despite efforts by successive rulers. First, Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the leader of the People’s Alliance (PA), political amalgam-led Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), secured power in 1994, ending the 17-year rule of the United National Party (UNP). . One of the key election promises was the abolition of the executive presidency, which Ms Kumaratunga blamed for all the country’s ills.

JVP representative Nihal Galappatti, who contested the 1994 presidential election, withdrew from the race mid-campaign after Ms. Kumaratunga formally pledged to scrap the executive presidency; therefore, Mr. Galappatti must have contested the polls with the sole aim of bringing about its abolition. It turned out to be an empty promise from Ms Kumaratunga. The executive presidential system is still in effect after three decades of such solemn promise.

However, after Ms Kumaratunga won the presidency for the second time, she introduced a new constitution in 2000 that abolished the system of devolving powers to a parliamentary system headed by the prime minister. It never saw the light of day because her government and the then opposition UNP party failed to agree on obtaining a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. The promises of constitution making or constitutional amendments are nothing new in Sri Lankan politics. This episode shows how constitutional promises often serve as vote-winning tactics rather than actionable plans.

Hastily made plans

Even when amendments were sometimes adopted, after much deliberation they turned out to be pieces of legislation that were hastily drafted with little or no regard for far-reaching consequences. As such, an amendment from one government was reversed by the next. An example is the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution during the period of the trial government formed for a short period between the People’s Alliance and the JVP.

It provided for the establishment of independent commissions. However, the spirit of the 17th Amendment was taken away by the enactment of the 18th Amendment during the time of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Once again, the 19th Amendment was incorporated shortly after the Yahapalana government was established in 2015, virtually undoing the 18th Amendment. Interestingly, a large number of MPs who voted for the 18th Amendment also voted for the enactment of the 19th Amendment. Then the 20th and 21st Amendments were introduced, each reversing the other.

The debate over constitution making

The constitution-making debate ahead of the presidential election has been reignited by the National People’s Power (NPP) pledge to introduce a new constitution by consensus with all parties in case it secures power. Past experience has shown that the introduction of a new constitution has always proven challenging and unrealistic. People interpret Sri Lanka as a country that is ethnically polarized. It is equally polarized politically, making building consensus between the parties a monumental task.

Consensus building for the required two-thirds parliamentary majority had proven unrealistic in the past, as the parties involved stuck to their position for valid reasons or for political purposes.

In the 2020 general election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government won a two-thirds majority. His government initiated action to draft a new constitution. Despite having two-thirds in the House of Representatives to get the proposal passed, his government failed to even draft a new constitution.

A new constitution or just a target for minority votes

As a party mature enough to understand parliamentary politics, the NPP or the JVP-led alliance is familiar with the intricacies of consensus building. Yet such comments may be directed at minority voters. The JVP has opposed the 13th Amendment tooth and nail in the past. The party has now clearly said goodbye to its position. It now faces the implementation of the 13th Amendment.

Promises about creating or amending constitutions are primarily intended to woo minority voters in the north and east. In presidential elections, minority voters sometimes become the crucial factor in determining the winner. As a result, it is likely that any candidate in the fray will make promises specifically designed to attract minority voters. In the north and east, voting patterns among Tamils ​​are determined by their demand for political rights, with the 13th Amendment being the minimum amount of power transfer sought.

But even implementing the provisions of the 13th Amendment has proven to be a futile exercise due to opposition from outside the North and East. Talks of transferring land and police powers to provincial councils in terms of the 13th Amendment have become a political taboo.

Like the JVP-led alliance NPP, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) leader Sajith Premadasa has also pledged to implement the 13th Amendment.

Conspiracy theories can also be built on any attempted transfer of power based on the 13th Amendment, interpreting it as an attempt leading to separation from the country.

.
The Tamil political party is aware of the facts

The Tamil political parties have also learned from past experiences. They are apparently aware that extensive power sharing is unrealistic. They believe that despite pious election promises, a president will not go beyond a point of transfer of power.

For that reason, an amalgamation of Tamil parties, the Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA), plans to field its own candidate. For a political movement led by the JVP, it is always a challenge to satisfy the minority electorate as it is a party that has historically opposed transfer of power. The JVP also played a role as a party in lawsuits over the division of the northern and eastern provinces.

The recurring promises of constitutional amendments and the creation of a new constitution have historically been little more than election-time rhetoric. While such pledges are often made to attract minority voters and address long-standing political and ethnic issues, the continued lack of succession and entrenched political polarization have made meaningful reform elusive. The ongoing cycle of amendments, each undoing the last, underlines the complexity and challenges of reaching consensus. As the upcoming elections approach, it remains to be seen whether these promises will once again fall through or whether there will be a genuine attempt to implement substantive constitutional changes. The ultimate responsibility lies with the electorate to critically assess these promises and make informed decisions at the ballot box.