20A: Discordant notes

Thursday 8th October, 2020

Perhaps, nothing has dealt the government’s 20th Amendment (20A) project a bigger blow than SLPP MP Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe’s recent letter to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He has pulled no punches in his missive, which says the President’s manifesto, Vistas for Prosperity and Splendor, did not say the laws introduced by the 19th Amendment (19A) would be abolished. Subscribing to the view that 20A should be approved by the people at a referendum in addition to being passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament to become law, he has said the MPs will be violating the Constitution, which they have taken an oath to protect, if they vote for 20A. No MP who follows the dictates of conscience will be able to support it, he has argued.

Dr. Rajapkshe has struck a responsive chord with all those who believe in the separation of powers, and checks and balances, the be-all and end-all of constitutional government. Theoretically, constitutionalism consists in controlling power by enabling all branches of government to share it subject to reciprocal control so that they have to act in tandem to safeguard the will of the state. Those who framed 19A eviscerated the executive presidency for political reasons, and the incumbent regime has sought to take it to the other extreme—the creation of an exceedingly powerful presidency at the expense of the other branches of government. If only the government had chosen to rid 19A of its flaws and vest some more powers in the executive presidency so that the President could hold the defence portfolio.

Minister Wimal Weerawansa, whose party has six MPs, has also struck a discordant note on 20A and suggested amendments thereto. He has got under the skin of some SLPP grandees who brook no criticism. The propaganda hounds of the government have been let loose on him if the nasty social media attacks on him are any indication. This shows how far the SLPP is ready to go to silence dissent within its ranks to steamroller 20A through Parliament.

Minister Weerawansa’s predicament reminds us how Genghis Khan punished a friend who had staged an abortive revolt. Not wanting to see his friend’s blood, Emperor Khan had the rebel put into a sack and kicked to death. The government seems to think the propaganda onslaught on Weerawansa will have a deterrent effect on other SLPP MPs critical of 20A. In fact, it has apparently had the desired impact; almost all the government MPs who took a critical view of 20A now have their tails between their legs. Wijeyadasa is made of sterner stuff.

This is not the first time Wijeyadasa has rebelled against the Rajapaksas. He left the Rajapaksa government, in a huff, in 2007, over a disagreement with the ruling family. He also has a history of crossing swords with other leaders. He took on the yahapalana government. It is too early to guess how he will vote when a division is called on 20A, in Parliament, but it looks as if the government had no trust in him. (He was denied a Cabinet post.)

Why the government is desperate to woo the Opposition MPs is understandable. Bathiudeen has five MPs and can deliver their votes for 20A en bloc. He will not do so unconditionally, though. He has his kith and kin and interests to look after. The police have suddenly found that there is no evidence to press charges against his brother, who was arrested and detained for about five months over his alleged links to one of the Easter Sunday bombers. Bathiudeen is also facing probes. He has been questioned by the CID several times under the current dispensation. An Opposition MP in such trouble is like a mango ripe for plucking for a government desperate for numbers in Parliament.

The government has come under an avalanche of criticism, mostly from its allies, for playing political footsie with Bathiudeen. It has, therefore, resorted to some face-saving tactics. It has reportedly said that a committee will be appointed to probe the release of Bathiudeen’s brother. If such a committee is ever to be appointed, it will have to conclude, under duress, that the police were right in having Bathiudeen’s brother released. The government will ensure that the committee will not say anything politically embarrassing to it. So, why have a committee, at all, when its conclusion is already known?