House under water

Thursday, 2 November 2017

There were a few things that would get us island folk in a flap in days gone by.
Cricket, coconut spirits, cost of living these about cut it then. Today you can add
constitutional reform to the heady mix that has us islanders ready to get our
sarongs in a twist or hitch them up to here in readiness for a brawl. Last but by no
means least add a dash of the bitter argot that is the jargon of jingoists, a twist of
the saliva inducing lime of ethno nationalistic chauvinism, and youve shaken and
stirred a potent cocktail to be drained at one gulp or poured down the sink

To deconstruct the concoction is to separate the hands that prepare the potion. In
simpler times, as far as power sharing went there were the yeas and the nays.
A third ingredient yes, but has enriched the mix. A fourth no, because
adds an ironic flavour. A fifth element the water (or, more accurately: water off
a ducks back) of so, what does nothing to improve the taste.

The yeas

The UNP ably leads the charge and the TNA ever so willingly follows. (Or have I
got that back to front?) Either way, at least both these parties have been
consistent in their call to devolve power to the peripheries. The TNA was born to
devolve power after the LTTEs breach. And the TNA-UNP combine achieved a
power-sharing compromise which is under threat of being still-born. But it was
the UNP that originally had the baby thrust upon it by dint of India holding the
13th Amendments smoking gun to our sovereigntys head way back when.

The nays

The JO are the loudest rabble-rousers of the lot. Their sabre-rattling has
transmogrified from being a mere nuisance to a more boisterous shade of nasty
with the emergence of inspired cohorts such as ViyathMaga. With one army
chieftain ostensibly gone over to the enemy camp, the former defence mandarin
in charge of organised state terror under the erstwhile regime finds himself in
cahoots with another general menace threatening death to traitors who support
even the idea of a new constitution.

The yes, buts

The JVP are arguably the smoothest political operators of them all. Really,
sometimes one is hard-pressed to identify where their sense of national interest
ends and define the beginning of their self-serving doctrines. However, despite
not being able to shake off their erstwhile indiscretion of bearing arms against the
state, they have pleaded a plausible case against the perpetuation of the
presidency. Therefore, this business of hunting with the UNPs hounds against the
Rajapaksa machine while running with hares running scared of executive abuses
quite becomes a party that can neither win nor lose, but play a canny game and
play it cannily.

The nos, because

The SLFP in contradistinction to their blue-in-the-face brethren in the JO have

managed to wedge a principle in the backdoor of constitutional reform. They will
go with flow, but not as far as eliminating the executive office which stands as a
symbol for their potential and much hoped for return to proper power per se
someday soon, perhaps not so far away now. That will certainly help their present
coalition partners to get their knickers in a twist. The president is the one whos
bound to be most pleased at persuading his peers to give the premiers party a
wedgie about a big poll in two years time.

The so, whats

The people who read this paper, thats who. Not to divide the nation-state again
along north and south lines, but would it be fair to say that as far as power-
sharing goes there is a geophysical as well as worldview axis which is roughly
north-south, along which the debate revolves? Let the people in the corridors of
power or closer to decision-making centres than the periphery take the tests
below to find out.

THE COUNTRY PLEASURES

(Sit down. But not in the House. Take it outside. Take it in stride. Go figure, go for
broke, go find that quiet place into which we all retreat when the worst are full of
passionate intensity and/but the best lack all conviction.)

A.Essays.

1.The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate
intensity. Discuss with reference to the Constitutional Assembly, its Steering
Committee, the President, the Prime Minister, the Joint Opposition, the JVP, the
TNA, clergy in favour of or opposed to constitutional reform, war heroes and/or
war criminals, ViyathMaga, et al. Define whos who. Decry treason. Deny reason.
Dry your tears. Do what is the right thing to do in the end. (A D for those who say
but dont do.)
B.Short Answers.

1.The 13th Amendment to the Constitution +/- is an idea whose time has come.
(Yea/Nay)

2.The present constitutional debate is not a decision, but part of the democratic
process which has been managed well to include all ideas including apathy and
dissent. (Yes, but/No, because)

3.Power corrupts. (So, what?)

C.MCQ.

1.A free pass which of these would you most like to abolish if it was in your
power?

a.All of the below

b.Boorish bigots who oppose reform for the wrong reasons

c.Chauvinistic constituents who propose reform for reasons right for them only

d.Democratic-republicanism under realpolitik

e.Executive abuses of democratic-republican leadership

2.Which of these would you describe as a house divided?

a.A House divided into three, no four, parts (cf. Asterix: All Gaul was divided into
three, no four, parts)

b.Coalition of Coalitions

c.National Unity Government

d.Democratic-Republicanism under realpolitik

3.Who must be (non)-executive president in a democratic-republic like yours and
mine?

a.I think it would be impudent or imprudent to answer, dont you?

b.Me if they wont stone the Fourth Estate for being Good Government in drag

c.You if you should condescend to just about everybody on everything

important

d.They could be anybody as long as the person elected is not seeking office
4.Whom would you characterise as a traitor if at all? (Go on, then if it helps,
imagine you have a gun being held to your head)
a.Anyone who betrays the peoples mandate

b.Both those who oppose the new social contract to include all demographics as
well as those pseudo-democrats who preach a new political culture but have
failed to repent of or reform the old ethos of realpolitik

c.Chauvinists who place race, creed, narrow interests, ethnic partiality, language
preferences, religious priorities, etc., above our emerging identity as Sri Lankan

d.Demagogues who rattle sabre in the House, rabble-rouse in the streets, disturb
the peace and harmony of a majority lobby in which they are in a minority
lobbying

The acid tests are tough to pass. But they are also tough to bypass without being
failed for lack of awareness and interest. And in the larger examination of life as
citizens in a new society we might all be failing for want of the horse shoe nail of
critical engagement.

There may be those who genuinely fear what the proposed constitutional reforms
may do to the things they value whether by virtue of principle, like the
territorial integrity of a sovereign state; or by dint of preference, such as losing
ones religion if a philosophical approach is taken to the optimal delivery of power
in a truly secular state. There is no greater risk or reward than being delivered
through, not from, our trials.

Take the tests. Trust the plunge towards an inclusive commonwealth. The worst is
that we lose our faith.
(A senior journalist, the writer was once the Chief Sub Editor of The Sunday Leader,
1994-8, and is ex-LMD, having been its Editor, 2004-8. He has made a career out
of asking questions, and not waiting for answers.)
Posted by Thavam