Incongruous ceremonial at Parliament opening

By A. PATABENDIGE

The ceremonial opening of the 9th Parliament, held on August 21, 2020 saw the President, a war veteran, nothing less, do away with the mainly military ceremonies that held sway before. However, what was unsettling were the actions of the Sergeant-at-Arms trio at the main entrance. They bushwhacked the President’s theme even if it was unintentional. It went largely unnoticed but needs to be corrected, fast.

The trio was armed with swords drawn. In fact, they looked somewhat dangerous and also totally incongruous. Where was the 24-pound gilded mace made of teak permitted by the Sergeant-at-arms but inside Parliament? It is the real symbol of authority even if it is blindly copied from the British. Similarly, as in Britain, he may carry a sword-which is safely sheathed and never drawn for obvious reasons.

The trio was spread out in line across the steps like a rugby front row at the kick off. They wore a peculiar black uniform with a shirt, tie and short jacket.

What was unsettling here was that they had swords drawn. While the Sergeant-at-Arms, according to British tradition, is permitted to wear a sword on the floor of Parliament and it is never unsheathed. In fact, a man in the UK (happens to be Nigerian) wears formal dress. His predecessor was a Moroccan Muslim when a Jew was Speaker. That is the beauty of British liberalism. There was once a female too, Jill Pay. Food for thought in SL.

According to the Parliament website the sergeants-at-arm are permitted to wear the gorget patches of a Major General and the epaulettes of an Admiral on what is meant to be the same as an Army officer’s No 1 dress! What an ill-begotten travesty equating this lot with the illustrious military, even if two of them have been senior military officers? Had their sword drills and dress passed muster with the Defence Ministry?

The Prime Minister in his normal white national dress and prominent ‘kurakkan satakaya’ arrived unescorted. As the Prime Minister walked up the steps, one of the trio, mulishly, thoughtlessly and acting dumb, stood directly in the path of the Prime Minister. He did not budge. The Prime Minister went around him nonchalantly despite having some difficulty in climbing. This has to be corrected and fast.

The President then drew up unescorted. He was dressed in a suit as a nod to this special occasion in Parliament. This would appear to be a calculated choice.

The national dance troupe that never fails to be anything but spectacular, sophisticated and captivating greeted him on the side of the entrance steps. At the top of the steps, a bevy of stunningly pretty schoolgirls, dressed in pleasant hues of pink and blue lama saris, stole the show as they sang jayamangala gathas beautifully and joyously. The President invited and spoke to them at tea after his address, making it a day they will never forget.

When the President mounted the stairs, the three swordsmen with drawn swords climbed the steps behind the President, the Speaker and the Secretary General. Does anyone in the close protection team of the President or even the Secretary General of Parliament, know how this potentially dangerous activity by men whose job is almost totally ceremonial and limited actually to the floor of parliament, was adopted, allowed, permitted or even considered at this ceremonial function?

A cordial chat with a genial Secretary General revealed that he was very proud of the inherited traditions of the UK Parliament as seen that day. He said the sergeant-at-arms tradition came from the time they were bodyguards to the British Sovereign. He said the Sergeant-at-Arms was the only one who was allowed to carry a sword (inside the floor of parliament). He did not say what that man was meant to do with it, except to imitate the UK model.

He was not much aware of the uniform with a tie, etc. that his Sergeants wore on August 21, 2020. He thought they had worn the military type dress uniform with gorget patches of a Major General and epaulettes of a ‘flag rank officer of the Navy’ approved as their ceremonial dress. He believed two of the trio were senior officers from the military. He was relieved to know the swords being ceremonial could not cut, but was told that a jab would be just as painful. He however did not show he relished even vicariously having Majors General and Admirals, at least as far as the uniforms went, obeying his orders.

SL’s Parliament may have copied all things British from the start. However, it is clear that SL has only inherited the form but not the substance of the British traditions. The conduct, behaviour and speech of MPs have been scandalous. While these experiments with dress were being introduced, it is good to recall that like in the UK a bomb was exploded by Guy Fawkes, while at Diyawanna it was by the JVP, which is not repentant but still tolerated. The danger exists.

It is time SL retained only the best of inherited ‘traditions’ and brought in the best and most appropriate traditions of yore to Parliament, to prevent dilutions and experiments, especially to allow Sergeants-at-Arms to run riot, befuddling the Secretary General and endangering both VIPs and all others.

Instead of there being various imitations of military dress, the trio could be dressed in the more majestic and imposing ceremonial dress of the Kandyans, provided the hill men do not object. Even the dress of the MPs could do with a stylised national dress the Kandyan way. This may have a salutary effect on their behaviour, too. Swords if they are to be retained by the Sergeant-at-Arms should never be drawn. And never again should a swordsman by any other name stand in the way of the Prime Minister.