Today, the 9th September, Sri Lankans woke up to a country which has changed politically in its character and in its legal system. With the passing of the 18th Amendment Sri Lanka has abandoned liberal democracy completely and all the debates that the country has had so far will now change in a most significant manner.
There is a Sinhala saying: “It is either Don or Simon, but it cannot be both”. The 1978 Constitution which was an authoritarian constitution hid its façade through the use of liberal democratic jargon and maintaining the appearance of being a liberal democracy. This situation was one of being a phantom democracy. Externally, the parliament still existed and some activities went on as they had done in the past. The courts, whose functions had changed substantially continued to function as if nothing had happened following the procedures they has used in the past. However, in the delivery of justice things had changed fundamentally. In public life there were still some reference to the law, circulars and other procedures coming down from the earlier times. The police, though in an extremely poor condition, pretended to function with the façade of the rule of law.
As the time passed from the beginning of the constitution of 1971 things became clearer and a process known as politicisation took place which merely meant that the ruling party virtually obstructed the normal functioning of all of these institutions. However, the country was still referred to as a democracy both locally and internationally. The governments went to international forums claiming the country to be a democracy. In the international discourse, while the international community criticised many aspects of the rule of law system and democracy in Sri Lanka still the country was recognised as a democracy.
What the 18th Amendment has done is to remove this façade. It has now completely abandoned any claim of having independent institutions. That everything will now be under the direct control of the executive president is an accepted position. The parliament will serve the interests of the president. The courts cannot go beyond the authority of the president and all the public institutions, the police, the electoral commission and the public service will be ruled directly by the decrees of the president and not according to any set norms that should function within a rule of law system.
It was this change that the people understood well and for this purpose there was not much of a disturbance in the country about the passing of the 18th Amendment. When a person dies from a serious and fatal illness after suffering for a long time it does not come as much of a shock. It is not the same as in the case of a young, robust person dying suddenly. His friends would have known about the illness for a long time and would be aware that the person might die at any time. When the death occurs there is a sense of relief in the knowledge that it was going to happen at some point in time. The reaction of the population to the passing of the 18th Amendment was in many ways similar to this. The people have seen the degeneration of the electoral system and the elections taking place fraudulently. Whether this happens twice in the lifetime of a president or three times or more does not make much of a difference.
The people have seen the growing corruption. If the people see the already bad situation regarding corruption becoming worse it comes as little surprise. The people have seen the extremely bad policing system incapable of maintaining the rule of law and the becoming subordinated to their political masters. If this situation was to grow worse that also would not come as any surprise to the people. As for the public servants, they have also been subordinated and harassed if they try to follow normal procedures and do their jobs in the manner required according to the law. Now, having to take orders directly from the political authorities without concerning themselves on the legalities or otherwise, also comes as no surprise to the people.
In all aspects of life the new situation only completes a course of change that has taken place since 1978 and since it is only the façade that has been removed the people are neither surprised nor shocked.
From now on the political and legal system of Sri Lanka will function as if under a dictatorship and there will no longer be any attempt to appear as a democracy.
It is this reality that the liberals in Sri Lanka should now face. It was the liberals that had the illusion about the 1978 Constitution being anything other than that of an authoritarian system. It was them that tried to give democratic interpretations to this Constitution. It was no surprise that the left wing labour party Members of Parliament also voted for this amendment. One of the persons who voted was the leader of the small Liberal Party of Sri Lanka. Despite of having extensively worked against the erosion of democracy by the 1978 Constitution he had no difficulty in voting for the 18th Amendment.
It is the more progressive sections of society that have illusions about Sri Lanka being anything other than an authoritarian political system that completely suppressed the legal system in the country. They thought it was possible to protect human rights within this authoritarian system. It was all these illusions that have now been exposed.
Any future struggle for democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka must now begin with the understanding of the political reality as it exists now, which is one of a completely authoritarian character. Within this setup there is no place at all for the rule of law. Both the rights of individuals in civil and political rights as well as property rights will be challenged in the time to come and the courts will no longer be an effective forum in the protection of these rights.
The sooner this reality is grasped by the more progressive sections of Sri Lanka society the better it will be for themselves as well as for the people of their country.
