Protecting 19a - Between A Constitutional Monarchy And A Modern Republic

The 19th Amendment is without doubt, the most democratic and progressive piece of amendment that the 1978 Constitution ever saw being made to it. Not only was the changes incorporated into the Draconian 2nd Republican Constitution by 19A, the keeping of a promise given by Maithripala Sirisena, the former President, when he contested against the then incumbent two- times president Mahinda Rajapaksa, it was also the realisation of a struggle that has been going on ever since the day the 1978 Constitution came to be the supreme law of this island nation. When the 19th Amendment was introduced to the Parliament in 2015, only one vote was cast against it. The Overwhelming majority of the peoples representatives including the subsequent detractors like Mahinda Rajapaksa raised their hands in favour of 19A.

NOT THE SYSTEM BUT THE PERSONNEL

Then why has this amendment now become a demon all of a sudden? Many blame the power structure that the mode of governance the amendment envisaged, by creating a power structure based on two depositories of power, in the Executive President, though hamstrung substantially by the checks and balances brought about by the amendment and on the other hand the Prime Minister, who had been made equally or, as some might suggest, more powerful by the changes introduced. They point to the stagnant economy, inefficient governance and the Easter bombings as direct results of this tug of war that ensued between the then President Sirisena and Premier Wickremasinghe.

The fact that all the said maladies have their roots in the ‘cold war’ that erupted between the then president and the premier of the Yahapalana government cannot be denied. Yet the argument that it is an inherent flaw in the system of governance engendered by 19A is without base. The tug of war was the result of the unwise, power greedy actions and attitudes of two personalities who had rallied together to defeat a greater evil, but who found out very soon that they were from two different planets in terms of not only their political dispositions but social, cultural, intellectual and even sexual orientations. It was unfortunate that a struggle against political tyranny, tribalism and downright roguery had to be jettisoned due to the idiosyncrasies of two individuals who led the two political streams that fought and won against an authoritarian ruler.

WORKABLE FOR SURE