BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

As I have pointed out many occasions political activities and strategies in Sri Lanka have become politic (Machiavellianism) of parties, which is attracted by public and media.  It can be popularly seen in democratic countries, however, in Sri Lanka, these politic games are used by the ruling party and the opposition parties to play strategical games to eyewash of people and coverup self-weakness and ignore most important issues in relation to the economic and social development of the country. After the political independence in 1948 these Machiavellianism has been gradually expanded and now it seems that politic in Sri Lanka has become serious constraint to economic development and growth.

When I was in the high school, I read books and articles on underdevelopment and poverty in third countries and talked about development decades of UN and interesting studied about the features of developing countries, which were not included the Machiavellianism in politic in developing countries. There were a group of economists who were doing research and publications on underdeveloped countries in the Sussex School of Economics and I had a keen interest in reading their publications.  My last reading on this matter was How the Other Half Dies (The Real Reasons for World Hunger) by Susan George (1976).  During the first decade of 21th Century, we talked about Millennium Goals and I feel that our politicians in Sri Lanka have not learned anything about this situation but they are using politic for survival than developing right policies for economic development and growth, monitoring policies and identifying remedial management of policies for failed policies.

The proposed ideas for a new constitution are a part of Machiavellianism in political administration.  The Yahapalana regime elected in 2015 had no effective programs for the country with the approval of the public with a proper debate on its objectives and possible impacts on the public.  During the past four years, they were dissimulating in public platforms and so-called NGO people supported them with hidden advantages.  They also used technical terms, which used by parent organisations and these terms are called jargons.  These NGO groups fabricated many things and international organizations closely observed the ruined Yahapalana regime and NGO people what they were doing.  If they wanted to attract foreign money, they had to show the results of what they have promised.  A new constitution was a promise, which had not the consent of the major community (estimated 79% of total population).  Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa clearly expressed at the Constitutional Council that the government appointed, has no legitimacy for writing a new constitution and his view was approved by major Buddhist leaders of the country.

A new constitution for a country should have a legitimate foundation and if it attempts to build the country with a new constitution without a strong foundation, it would be a castle that is builded on sands, as Jesus Christ stated.  Lots of opinions expressed and debated on the proposals of expert panel in the constitutional council before submitted the report.  Although the prime minister wanted to hide the proposed structure, it was leaked to public with the support of the members of expert panel.

The behaviour of the Yahapalana regime has not been transparent to the public and so many fabricated gossips traveled in the society.  Although the regime attempted to show they were against corruptions the real behavior of the regime was Machiavellian because they were doing largest corruptions, they attempted to punish small procedural mistakes ignoring large scale corrupt work such as Central Bank bond scam.  The committees appointed were neither independent nor efficient.  It clearly seemed that the administration of the executive president is more democratic and reasonable to the community than committees.

Elections are watchtower of a democratic government and holding elections were either stopped or tactically delayed by the government.  Public openly questions about the behavior of the government.

The proposed ideas for a new constitution have created serious questions among the public.

• If the government wants to maintain the country as a unitary state why it has changed the term Unitary State” to united states” giving the clear meaning that the proposed meaning is not a unitary state, but a federal state called united states. Since the prehistoric era, Sri Lanka has been governed as a unitary state, why the government attempts to change this considering self-centered views of TNA which represents less than 6% of total population of Sri Lanka. If it happens, it would be logical to think that all communities with a 6% of the population should give the legitimacy for provincial states.  The idea of the expert panel is highly divisive and inviting ethnic and religious conflicts in the country. It may be a secret tack tic to attract people of Sri Lanka who are academically qualified, skilled and people with qualities to foreign countries.
• Buddhism has been working as the main religion of people since the era of King Devanam Piyatissa. A recent statement of Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith (Catholic Archbishop) has confirmed the idea that Buddhism should work as the main part of a tree if Sri Lanka consider like a tree with many branches.  There is no harm giving the prominence to Buddhism while treating other religions in equal status. But Sri Lankans do not want to convert Sri Lanka to a secular state.
• Abolishing of Executive Presidency giving the existing executive power to the prime minister shows like an attempt to get executive by prime Minister by free of charge without going to peoples’ vote. The executive presidency generated many benefits to the country, which include the right leadership, the unity of people, the sovereignty of People, support to good policy orientation, policy monitoring, and remedial management of policies.  When the elected members to the parliament become corrupt personals who always subject to auction in the market for highest bidder, the president practically intervened and demonstrated that he or she could work against the undemocratic culture and look after people of the country.
• Providing excess power to provinces is harmful to the country. The provincial governments in Sri Lanka are white elephants, who consume a large sum of funds of the government for administration purposes.  In fact, it is a way of providing jobs to selected people rather than creating jobs for all in the country.  The expenditures to provincial councils have created a serious fiscal crisis in Sri Lanka.  Why the government wants to create further fiscal problems.
• Sri Lanka had a Senate council, which was abolished before. We learned while studying at Grade 8 and 10, that Senate was a barrier to pass important acts from the parliament and the system of appointing members to the council was undemocratic and against the sovereignty of people. Why the government wants to create problems again.
• Establishing provincial police is inviting another crisis in the country. From 1983 to 2009, Police department worked under one minister and it exemplarily worked under a single authority.  Why the government wants to change it.

There are many issues in connection with the expert views on the proposed constitution.

The government did not transparent on these matters and that is why the yahapalana regime was unsuccessful in Sri Lanka.