Can voters rely on the promises of politicians?

The promises of constitution making or constitutional amendments are nothing new in Sri Lankan politics

Sri Lanka is equally polarized on political lines making consensus building among parties a monumental task

Election time is around the corner. A galore of promises, political grandstanding and conspiracy theories are only natural in the times ahead. The trend is already visible. The political literacy of the people who are supposed to decide, ultimately, matters more than ever during this time, to sift truth out of the mess for informed decisions to be made when casting ballots.

Another broken promise?

Once again, promises for constitutional amendments or the creation of a new constitution are being made by political leaders.  Once again it is time for reflection on such promises with sanity. For good, transparent governance, strong constitutional provisions are needed.  

Pledges of amendments to the existing Constitution or the creation of a new Constitution have always been heard from the political stage at least since 1994. Still, nothing substantial has materialized ever since, despite attempts made on and off by the successive rulers.  First, in 1994, Ms. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, the leader of the People’s Alliance (PA) which was the political amalgam led Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) secured power, ending the 17-year rule of the United National Party (UNP). One main election pledge was the abolition of the executive presidency which Ms. Kumaratunga blamed for all the ills of the country. 

In fact, JVP representative Nihal Galappatti, who contested for the presidential elections in 1994 withdrew from the race in the middle of the campaign, after Ms. Kumaratunga pledged formally to scrap the executive presidency; therefore, Mr. Galappatti must have contested the polls for the sole purpose of getting it abolished.  It turned out to be a hollow promise by Ms. Kumaratunga.  The executive presidential system is still in force after three decades of such a solemn promise.

However, after securing the presidency for the second time, Ms. Kumaratunga introduced a new Constitution in 2000 providing for the abolition of the system for powers to be transferred to a parliamentary system headed by the Prime Minister.  It never saw the light of day as her government and the then opposition UNP failed to see eye to eye to ensure a two-thirds majority in the House for its passage. The promises of constitution making or constitutional amendments are nothing new in Sri Lankan politics. This episode shows how constitutional promises often serve as vote-catching tactics rather than actionable plans.

Hurriedly made plans

Even when amendments were incorporated at times, after much deliberation, they turned out to be pieces of legislation worked out hurriedly with little or no calculation for far reaching implications. As such, an amendment incorporated by one government was undone by the next. One example is the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution during the time of the probationary government formed between the People’s Alliance and the JVP for a brief period. 

It provided for the establishment of the independent commissions. However, the spirit of the 17th Amendment was taken away by the enactment of the 18th Amendment during the time of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Again, the 19th amendment was incorporated soon after the Yahapalana government was set up in 2015 virtually undoing the 18th Amendment. Interestingly, a large number of MPs who voted for the 18th Amendment also voted for the enactment of the 19th Amendment. Afterwards, the 20th and 21st amendments were brought in – one undoing the other. 

The debate on constitution making

The debate on constitution making, ahead of the presidential election, has again been sparked by the promise of the National People’s Power (NPP) to introduce a new Constitution in consensus with all the parties in case it secures power. The introduction of a new Constitution has always been proven challenging and unrealistic according to past experiences. People interpret Sri Lanka as a country ethnically polarized. It is equally polarized on political lines making consensus building among parties a monumental task. 

Consensus building for the required two-thirds parliamentary majority had proven to be unrealistic in the past since the parties concerned stuck to their guns either for valid reasons or political ends. 

At the 2020 general election, the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government obtained a two-thirds majority. His government initiated action for drafting a new Constitution. Despite having two-thirds in the House to get it passed, his government failed to even draft a new Constitution. 

A new Constitution or only a target for minority votes

As a party mature enough to understand parliamentary politics, the NPP or the JVP-led alliance is familiar with intricacies involved in consensus building. Still, it may have made such remarks targeting minority constituencies. The JVP was opposed tooth and nail to the 13th Amendment in the past. The party has now made a clear departure from its stand. It now stands for the implementation of the 13th Amendment. 

Promises of constitution making or amendments are primarily aimed at wooing minority voters in the north and east. At presidential elections, minority constituents sometimes become the critical factor in deciding the winner. As a result, it is plausible that any candidate in the fray will make promises specifically meant to attract minority voters. In the north and east, voting patterns among Tamils have been driven by their demand for political rights with the 13th Amendment being the minimum amount of power devolution sought.

However, even the implementation of the provisions of the 13th Amendment has proven to be a futile exercise because of opposition from outside the north and east. Talks of transferring land and police powers to provincial councils in terms of the 13th Amendment have become political taboo. 

Like the JVP- led alliance NPP, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) leader Sajith Premadasa has also promised to implement the 13th Amendment. 

Conspiracy theories can also be built on any attempt for power devolution based on the 13th Amendment by interpreting it as an attempt leading to separation of the country

. 
Tamil political party’s privy to facts

The Tamil political parties also have learnt from past experiences. They are apparently privy to the fact that extensive power sharing is unrealistic. They believe any president will not go beyond a point in power devolution despite pious election promises. 

For that very reason, an amalgam of Tamil parties called the Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA) is planning to field its own candidate.  For a political movement led by the JVP, it is always challenging to appease the minority electorate because it is a party that was opposed to power devolution in the past. The JVP, as a party, also played a role in litigation seeking the demerger of the northern and eastern provinces.

The recurring promises of constitutional amendments and the creation of a new constitution have historically been little more than election-time rhetoric. While such pledges are often made to attract minority voters and address long-standing political and ethnic issues, the consistent lack of follow-through and the deeply entrenched political polarization have made meaningful reforms elusive. The ongoing cycle of amendments, each undoing the last, underscores the complexity and challenges of achieving consensus. As the upcoming election approaches, it remains to be seen whether these promises will once again fall short or if there will be a genuine effort towards substantial constitutional change. The ultimate responsibility lies with the electorate to critically assess these pledges and make informed decisions at the ballot box.