By Sumanasiri Liyanage

Somewhere in 2003 when the issue of interim administration for Northern and Eastern Provinces was raised, some, including myself, argued that the country should adopt an interim or transitional constitution including power-sharing arrangement for the war-ravaged provinces.
The idea behind this suggestion was that other important constitutional issues such as all powerful executive presidency with almost no checks and balances and politicization of the bureaucracy may also be addressed in such an interim constitution. However, there was no serious debate on this subject partly due to the political changes that took place in the late 2003 and early 2004. Moreover, it was made clear that no significant change can be initiated without the consent of the executive president.

Things have been more solidified since the presidential election in November 2005. Nonetheless, Sri Lanka needs a substantial restructuring of its political system, especially the state. The country cannot go forward with the current Constitution enacted in 1978. It has produced and will constantly generate mal-distribution of power, wealth and income, both ethnically and spatially.
How can it be done? It was clear that the major Sinhala political parties, the UNP, SLFP and JVP, do not wish to take that responsibility into their hands. The current state of the APRC process, the inaction over the COPE report and constant violation of human rights by the state institutions signify that the debate between major political parties lack necessary focus or orientation.
It marginalises main issues while privileging marginalised issues. While Ranil Wickremesinghe burned more fuel with regard to Ven. Medhananda Thera’s Benz car issue than in the APRC process or on the Constitutional Council, President Mahinda Rajapaksa spend more resources and time on Mihin Air and Toppigala than on the APRC process or COPE report.

The debate between the government and the opposition is oriented towards capturing the power of Parliament. Both sides are interested in holding ministries, either through changing party affiliations or by toppling the government, rather than serving the country.

In the words of the so-called Mahanuwara Prakashanaya, the UNP calls for a Parliamentary election, claiming that Parliament has failed to represent the sovereignty of the people.
It is not my intention here to discuss the illogicality and absurdity of Mahanuwara Prakashanaya (MP), although I have a minor objection to the adjective as the MP is an insult to the people living in and around this beautiful and historical peripheral town, but to raise an issue how a new space can be created so that the people can exercise their sovereignty in a more useful and relevant manner.

I wish to restate our earlier suggestion for an interim constitution in a more practical manner by stimulating a new discussion on those vital issues raised at the APRC proceedings, the findings of the COPE report and human rights violations. Whether we like it or not and in spite of the fact it should be radically changed for make the system more democratic, the executive president is a key to any significant change.

Therefore, I suggest two things. First I suggest that a non-party candidate standing on a minimum and basic programme should be announced immediately for the 2011 presidential election. The programme may include four elements, namely, (1) to establish more accommodative and democratic state structure to overcome mal-distribution of power and wealth spatially and ethnically; (2) to develop in-built system to minimise corruption and mal-practices in public sector; (3) to ensure system that protect human rights even in emergency situation; (4) to design a long term social contract between business, workers and the government so that economic activities can be conducted with minimum uncertainty.

Secondly, after nominating a consensus candidate in deliberations between business, trade unions, peasants’ organisations, organisations of numerically small nations and ethnic groups and professionals, a campaign on minimum program and the candidate should be launched before January 2008 so that there will be four years of continuous campaign.
Who should be this non-party presidential candidate? The person is important. The person should agree to hold the office maximum of three years and the transitional program should be implemented within this period.

These are my nominations: Jayantha Dhanapala (formerly at UN, Ex-Director, Sri Lanka Peace Secretariat), S.C. Mayadunne (former Auditor General), Radhika Coomaraswamy (UN), W.D. Lakshman (Prof of Economics, Colombo University), Deva Rodrigo (Ceylon Chamber of Commerce), Neela Marikkar (Sri Lanka First), Shah (Bank Union). Others can come up with their suggestions.

Let me end with a brief note to avoid any misunderstanding. This proposal does not intend to nullify the existing party system. It would be better if parties can back this nonparty candidate only at the 2011 presidential polls. The idea is to develop a mechanism and system within which parties can operate in more effective and democratic manner.

As a result, the party system will prevail, but the working environment will be transformed. Will it a doable project? Many countries have shown the emergence of non-party but political candidates in critical situations, and they played a credible and commendable role in transition phases without a selfish agenda.

The writer teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya. Email: sumane_l@yahoo.com

This article written for Montage, published by Counterpoint. To get in touch with or to subscribe to Montage, please email montagesrilanka [at] gmail.com or visit their blog