In this report the Sinhala Commission puts forward proposals embodying principles suggested earlier. This is not a complete draft for a new constitution according to SC Chairman S.W. Walpita, but "a set of proposals that would enable the realisation of the objectives namely putting an end to confrontational politics and for a more orderly, just governance and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the country's wealth."

In Part l of our Report we rejected the Government's proposals for a new Constitution and we have also not accepted the UNP proposals for the reasons given by us. But many have asked us what we suggest should be the form of Constitution that will help to unite the people as one nation and provide a political, economic social and cultural improvement of the country; We therefore consider it opportune now to give our views on certain matters that should be considered in drafting a new constitution that will be the fundamental law of the State. In doing so, we were naturally guided by our own recommendation No 15 in Chapter 6 of the Report (page 321), where we have stated that,". our aim must be to design a political structure in consonance with the Buddhist social philosophy on which was based the governance of our country for over two thousand years until the incursions of the Western colonists " .It must be noted that under that system of governance, the rights of all sections of the community, especially ethnic and religious minorities, had been recognized, the central aim being the promotion of mutual respect and co-operation. We have sought to it that the ethnic and religious minorities should have no cause for fear about their future under these proposals.

We said " this calls lor two basic steps: (a) the restructuring of our political institutions in accordance with the Buddhist way of life; (b) the adoption of an economic system which will serve such a way of life while ensuring a more equitable distribution of the country's wealth so as to provide the basic human needs to every member of our society.'' To achieve this, we must modernize but we must remember that modernisation does not mean slavish westernization.

We are also of the view that the formulation of a new Constitution suitable to the present and future needs of our country, should not be a mere desk job, a theoretical and academic exercise. It should be a realistic piece of work taking into consideration our identity, our culture, our ethos, the present parlous state of the country and the reasons therefore and projections into the future to ensure law and order, good governance, peace and harmony among our several communities, economic development and prosperity and to ensure that with the great talents and versatility of our people, this country will find an honourable place among the comity of nations.

In particular we would like to mention that any committee or commission embarking on the task should take note of the fact that the general body of people have been cheated by successive governments, and the country is in chaos and near collapse. There is no law and order now, with the country fast descending into ruin and a takeover by a Mafia-like organization a possibility. There is mass youth unemployment and youth unrest. The medical services, hospitals, public transport, the postal services and the entire public administration including the police is indisciplined, corrupt and inefficient. One of the main factors is the politicization at all levels of government and the exercise of pressures by the ruling party. Party politics is the bane of this country. The politician should be separated from the day to day administration but at the same time new institutions should be set up to remedy the grievances of the common people.

We do not intend to go into all these evils except to alert the Constitution makers to make an inquiry in depth into such matters and take remedial action. Our suggestions are on a narrower basis and are open ended, needing further discussion. But we would like to high light the following selected topics and matters where we have looked at them in their light and shade, commenting on their vices and virtues for further consideration by the people.

THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY?

In our Report we referred to the Executive Presidency (pare 23. 15 - P. 190) and the pledge given by the President to abolish it by the 15th July 1995. This could have been done easily by that date under article 82 of the Constitution, especially, as the U.N.P. The main opposition party was prepared to support such an amendment at the time. But the President did not honour her pledge given by a public announcement to that effect and in writing to the Janatha Vimukti Peramuna that she would do so. The Janatha Vimukti Peramuna withdrew its candidate on the pledge given and the President was elected by a 62% majority in consequence, the electorate endorsing among other issues put to them, her promise to abolish the Executive Presidency. The people clearly, by an overwhelming majority wanted the Executive Presidency abolished, because under the 1978 Constitution the Executive President had dictatorial powers which no other Constitution in any country, as far as we are aware gave its Executive President or Prime Minister. As we have noted in our Report (pare 23.15, P.190) even the President of the United States of America does not have such power.

The present Constitution was drafted on the dictates of the late President J. R. Jayewardene to give the holder of that office this absolute despotic power. The President is head of the Executive and the Administration is under his/her total control. He/she appoints the members of the Cabinet and he/she can retain in his/her hands any portfolio he/she pleases. Though he/she has a Cabinet of Ministers they are not in sole control of the departments in their charge. The President can and often does give directions through his/her Secretary to the Secretaries in charge of the various ministries on any matter he/she may think necessary and the Minister concerned will not know anything about it. The present President has also adopted the practice of appointing "Task Forces" on subjects coming under the purview of various Ministers and such Task Forces report direct to her, thus by-passing the Minister concerned and his Ministry.

But what is the alternative? There must be a Central Executive. This is provided for in all written and unwritten constitutions. They are the President in an Executive Presidential form of Government or a Prime Minister and Cabinet in a parliamentary system of Government. Before the 1978 Constitution we had a Cabinet form of Government with a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of Ministers. All of them were elected Members of Parliament. So it is suggested by many, that we should return to that form of Government which many say is the only democratic form of Government. This is hardly so. Forms of Government can be democratic without having a parliamentary form of Government. An example is the U.S.A. But our experience with the British style of Parliamentary Government has not been totally happy.

Except in the years when a political party got an overwhelming majority of the seats in Parliament, the Governments formed by political parties without such majority have often been found to be unstable. Much time was spent by the leader of the party who was the Prime Minister in seeing that he keeps his majority in Parliament and prevent defections. To prevent defections a law was later passed enabling the party leadership to expel members who disobeyed the party whip. Expulsion of a member from a party could mean his losing his seat in Parliament. This affectively prevented defection. It is now recognised that the proportional representation system of election to Parliament introduced by the Government in 1977 has several defects including the difficulty encountered in any one Party obtaining a workable majority. We do not propose to go into this matter in detail but recommend that this system be reviewed with a view to removing the major defects. There are several other systems that operate in various countries. In the Appendix we make some suggestions for consideration.

In Sri Lanka today we have two main parties, the UNP and SLFP. The governing party is an Alliance consisting of the SLFP and the Leftist Parties, the LSSP, CP and the SLMP and called the People's Alliance. There is very little difference in policy between the UNP and PA, if they are said to have any policy at all apart from the idiosyncrasies of the leaders of the parties. They are both capitalist parties which are merely carrying on or implementing economic policies laid down by the World Bank and IMF. These policies are to have an open economy and free trade and reduce to a minimum government involvement in the economy and subject it to the regulation of the all-mighty "market'. These World Bank and IMP prescriptions are what have turned the ASEAN countries into economic and financial beggary today. The beneficiaries of these World Bank and IMF policies are the Multinational Corporations of West and financial speculators, the World Bank and IMF being in fact their agents.

Both the SLFP and UNP have no national plan indicating what they hope to achieve for the nation and people during their terms of office.

When these parties have to depend on the support of communal parties to have a majority in Parliament due to their pressures. It is mainly, the interests and priorities of those latter parties that are looked into and considered, greatly to the detriment of the majority of the people who are Sinhala Buddhists as well as to the country as whole.

The vast majority of the people are today thoroughly disillusioned with the unprincipled policies of the two main political parties and want the party system abolished and unity established among the people, especially the Sinhala people. They believe that if they bath follow policies, laid down by the World Bank & IMF, there is no reason why they cannot unite on national issues. Disunity only benefits communalists and external forces who are waiting to exploit this country as they did in the past, under naked colonialism. We are convinced that the leadership of these parties do not want any kind of unity and are even opposed to it. They are not patriotic, have no vision and are ignorant of the history of this country and have no feeling for the Buddhist ethos that is a part of the very soil of this land.

The creation of a Dictator in the form of the Executive President has resulted in another unfortunate effect that is seriously detrimental to the country. Nothing gets done until it has been approved by the President. No bureaucrat will take the responsibility to do anything unless he gets the approval of the highest boss. The vast number of people that attend mobile Presidential Kachcheri is indicative of total bureaucratic paralysis. This is due to political interference at every turn. The Executive President can also obstruct through his/her secretariat any measure proposed by his/her ministers even after Cabinet approval. It was said some years ago under the Cabinet from the Government that existed then, that the Prime Minister at the time had a 'kitchen' or 'family' inner Cabinet that overruled Cabinet decisions. The position today is worse. Under the Executive Presidency ministerial orders or plans are overuled by the Executive President's Secretariat. All this is the result of an overall despotic ruler, a sort of autocratic Czar answerable to none. In a democratic twentieth century such an all-mighty Czar is an anachronism and must be got rid of.

Whether the Chief Executive be an Executive President or Prime Minister such 'one man or one woman show' is out of place in a democratic system and is not conducive to good governance at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st Century, Modern life is far too complicated politically, economically and culturally for one person to be held responsible for the final decisions that affect the vast mass of people in a more sophisticated world. In a more primitive set up a King or Emperor would have sufficed to rule a country but not any more.

It is not good to have over all concentration of power. It hinders the practice of democracy, impedes economic development and prevents taking full advantage of collective wisdom. Over - concentration of power is liable to give rise to arbitrary rule by individuals at the expense of collective leadership, and it is an important cause of bureaucratic inefficiency.

It is not good also to have people holding too many posts, concurrently or being responsible for too many subjects. There is a limit to anyone's knowledge, experience and energy. If a person holds too many posts at the same time or is responsible for them, he will prevent other more suitable persons being given a chance of serving the nation.

In spite of all the powers she has as an Executive President, obviously the present President is not satisfied. Frustrated by the provisions of the present Constitution which she calls 'J R. ge Bahubutha Viyavastawa' which incidentally enabled her to be President but which prevents the Government from installing her 'package' Constitution (which creates a Federal state) without the co-operation or support of the opposition, she wants to have her way by having a 'Constitutional revolution'. She told the Asia Week that that is the way by which she will have a new constitution.

What is this 'Constitutional revolution' she is talking about. This idea 'constitutional revolution' is a contradiction in terms. Constitutional means acting according to the Constitution and no other. Revolution would be active acting outside the Constitution. In nature and human affairs changes take place albeit slowly and by evolution. But sometimes there are sudden changes which occur, which are called revolutions. For a revolution to take place in nature or human affairs there must be a revolutionary situation. Revolution cannot be created by magic or pulled out of a magician's hat like a rabbit. No single person however powerful has created a revolution. People have taken advantage of revolutionary situations to seize power. There is however no such revolutionary situation in Sri Lanka today.

What the president has in mind is surely, an unconstitutional and immoral seizure of power, in other words a coup de tat.

She will go to the people in an election and ask for a mandate to change the Constitution. If she wins she will set up a Constituent Assembly or have the parliament pass resolution and have a new Constitution adopted even by one vote. Such a procedure will be totally unconstitutional and bring about chaos and anarchy in this country. We advise the President not to try this method. Even Hitler rose to be a dictator and exercised dictatorial power, having got such power through the Constitution in force at the time in Germany. When the American savant Noam Chomsky was asked what "Post-Modernism" was, he said he did not know what it was, but was sure it was some muck coined by a U. N. bureaucrat in order to keep his job. We think this term "Constitutional revolution" is also muck concocted by some bogus constitutional lawyer bent on destabilizing this country.

She also hinted at another kind of unconstitutional procedure to implement the "package" to divide the country and also deconstruct democratic institutions and even curb the independence of judiciary and assume dictatorial powers.

This she thinks could be achieved by a series of elections, by destroying the party system and having a set of pliant courtiers, ostensibly to meet the wishes of the people but really to use this amorphous arrangement to implement her designs. This can only be achieved by deception and use of terror and violence thereby destroying fair and free elections.

If she gets these powers people will only be permitted to shout "Hail Caesar!. Vive le Emperor" and forget about democracy and the franchise. Because we have seen how the holder of the post of Executive President becomes obsessed with power and abuses it, is another reason why we want the Executive Presidency abolished.

Decisions of the Committee were by majority vote in secret ballot. The Chairman had an original and casting vote. Meetings were summoned by its clerk on the direction of the minister or at request of any three members.

Decisions of Committees normally required the approval of the State Council and had to be embodied in a report for the latter's consideration. Such reports could either be accepted, rejected or referred back to the Committee concerned for further consideration.

There were three unelected " Officers of State", namely the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Legal Secretary. They were the most important officers of the Executive and they were mainly concerned with looking after the interests of the British Government in Sri Lanka. These officers were in charge of the reserved subjects and until the last days of the Constitution, the permanent holders of these positions were Britishers. The only exception was when at the tail end of the Donoughmore period, Oliver Goonetilleka was appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies as Financial Secretary. The three Officers of State were referred to as the 'three policemen' by E. W. Perera, placed there by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Chief Secretary functioned as the ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Ministers. He was the chief spokesman for the Colonial Government in the State Council.

The three Officers of State and the elected Chairmen of the Seven Executive Committees formed the Board of Ministers. The Chief Secretary was Chairman but there was also the leader of the State Council who was the deputy Chairman. The Officers of State did not have a vote.

The Governor had six alternatives in dealing with a bill adopted by the State Council. He could (1) assent to it at once, (2) reserve it pending His Majesty's approval, (3 ) refer it back to the to the State Council with or without suggested amendments, (4) certify it with a proviso that it involves an important question of principle and must therefore require a two thirds majority, (5) assent to it but suspend its operation for a period not exceeding six months, (6) refuse to assent altogether. In every instance he had to report his action to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

We see here, that under the Colonial Regime, the British had firm control of the Executive and General Administration, Finance and Internal Security. With regard to imperial interests the Governor had a completely free hand. He was besides, responsible for the Island's defence. He was Commander-in-Chief of the Island's armed forces.

There were, besides, the emergency powers. If the Governor felt that 'a state of emergency had arisen or was as imminent from the danger of enemy action or of civil disorder or from any grave cause' be could by proclamation assume control of any government department and give any orders and direction to that department as he may think fit.

THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

We have, here, given a brief account of the operation of the Donoughmore scheme. In adopting an Executive Committee system, we cannot take over the Donoughmore scheme in toto. It is obvious that it has to be radically changed. The Colonial Government has gone and we are an independent country. The functions that the Officers of State had until independence have been taken over by Ministers and they are subject to policy decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers. But functions that had been assigned to the Officers of State were crucial to the political and economic stability of the Government and the political well being of the State. We would be suggesting hereafter how these particularly functions should be exercised under a revised Executive Committee System that will ensure political stability and the long term economic development of the country by adhering to a carefully considered five year or ten year economic development plan.

If a Constitution similar to the Donoughmore Executive Committee System is adopted there will be no need to abolish the party system. The history of democracy with its beginnings in Greece and Buddhist India show that it had little connection with parties. That however will remain, but the political role of the parties will be radically altered and the present unscrupulous competition and confrontational approach to governance minimised. This will also ensure the optimum use of resources and efficiency in the administration.

Political parties will contest the parliamentary elections as they do now. Once the election is concluded, the leader of the party which has obtained the largest number of seats will be appointed by the President to be the Prime Minister and the leader of the party with the second largest number of seats to be Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be called upon to name his Cabinet of Ministers and assign the subjects and functions to each ministry. In doing so he will be required to act in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister and ensure that all interests are adequately represented in the Cabinet. We trust that these two high officers with their experience and maturity be able to act in a just and fair manner. We think that by adopting such a procedure in forming the Cabinet it will be possible to ensure consensual politics and put an end to the present system where the two major parties are forever at loggerheads with each other both within Parliament as well as outside. All political parties represented in Parliament which have polled over 20% of the total votes cast at the election should be entitled of posts in the Cabinet in proportion to their strength. Cabinet members will not be bound by party affiliations or party directives.

The remaining members of Parliament belonging to all parties will then be assigned equally as far as possible to the different ministries, taking into account each M.P. 's aptitude, experience and professional qualifications if any. As far as possible the members' preference will be taken into account in allocating the Ministry to which he should be attached. The Minister and the MPs assigned to each Ministry will form the Executive Committee for that Ministry and be in charge of the subjects and functions allocated to that Ministry. All Members of the Committee will, irrespective of their party affiliations, have equal rights in the Committee and have the right to initiate or formulate policy affecting the subjects or functions under the control of that Committee. Party affiliations or party directives should not bind any M.P. who should be free to act, speak or vote according to his conscience in the Committee.

Each Committee in its discretion will have the power to summon any individual, professional or a body of experts to hear their views on any subjects falling within its ambit. All policy decisions will be reached by consensus. If possible, failing which by majority vote. The proposals approved by the Executive Committee will be submitted to the Cabinet. Once the Cabinet accepts any proposal, legislation can be considered. Members of the Cabinet must support it in Parliament, the exception being where there is a proposal to amend the Constitution, when a free vote is allowed. Details of this new Executive Committee System will have to be worked out once the principle is accepted.

The great advantage of the proposed Executive Committee System is that all parties represented in Parliament will have a say in the formulation and execution of government policy and hence there will be less confrontation and acrimony. Furthermore this will bring about a sense of cooperation among the different political parties and ethnic communities. The affairs of Government will be carried out largely by consensus and the ideal referred to by the Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta where the legislators " assemble and disperse in harmony and carry out their functions in harmony and unity "would have been realised.

Special Commissions

As mentioned earlier under the Donoughmore Constitution the most important subjects were in charge of the three Officers of State and the Governor. They were Defence and Internal Security in charge of the Governor and Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary dealt with finance, and the Legal Secretary being concerned with legislation and the administration of Courts. Foreign policy was the responsibility of the Colonial Office in London.

We think these subjects are too important to be handled by Executive Committees and their Ministers alone. This is because they involve the political and economic stability of State, its Security and National Planning. We propose that these subjects should be the responsibility of Commissions such as a Defence and Internal Security Commission, Finance Commission, Foreign Affairs Commission, Public Service and Administration Commission. These Commissions should comprise the President, Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister in Charge of the main subject or function, two M.P.s selected by the Parliament and other knowledgeable persons such as defence and military experts. The officials will be only advisors and not have voting rights. It would be noted that all these persons are elected by the people and this scheme does not subvert the principles of democracy. There should also be a Cultural Policy Commission the principal function of which should be to safeguard the Buddhist way of life and the national culture of this country. The members of the Commission should be as in the case of the other Commissions the President, Prime Minister Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Cultural Affairs and two Members of Parliament.

There should also be a Supreme Advisory Council consisting of the Ven. Mahanayake Theros of the Three Nikayas. The advice of the Supreme Advisory Council should be obtained by the Cultural Policy Commission on all matters relating to the Buddha Sasana and Buddhist culture.

We have included the President as a member of these Commissions because the President is after all the Commander - in - Chief of the armed forces and it is our view that the President should not be a mere ceremonial figure head but should have some restricted functions but not be an all powerful Executive President as he is now. He will preside over the meetings of the Commissions.

The idea of having Commissions for the subjects we have enumerated may seem novel and not found in the British Parliamentary type of Constitution but something similar exists in the USA where they have Congressional and Senate Committees which have very important functions.

The Defence and Internal Security Commission will be responsible for all matters relating to the defence of the country and internal security. The Finance Commission will be responsible for approving the National Plan which we refer to below and will also be involved in preparing the annual budget. The Foreign Affairs Commission will be responsible for foreign affairs and ensure that foreign affairs are conducted on a non-party basis and in the best interests of the country as a whole. These Commissions will be convened by the President on his own initiative or on the advice of the Prime Minister.

We are of the view that the revival of the Executive Committee System subject to the modifications we have suggested regarding the establishment of Special Commissions in a new Constitution for the country will be a solution for the so-called "ethnic problem" too. The minorities will be brought into, the Executive and the Centre through the Executive Committee System and their particular concerns will we think be addressed in a harmonious atmosphere without acrimony and confrontations.

With regard to devolution of powers to be periphery, we have already expressed our views in Part 1 of the Report, that the unit of devolution should be the District Council. The Provincial Council System should be abolished as the majority of the people never asked for it and it was imposed on this country by India via the Indo-Lanka Accord with ulterior motives, in order to have permanent presence in this country. The Indo- Lanka Accord as we bave said should be abrogated for the reasons we have given in our earlier Report. Today these Provincial Councils are a burden on the country having added another layer of bureaucracy with all its attendant evils.

The President and Vice President

We have stated that the President who will take the place of the Executive President will not be one confined to purely ceremonial duties but will have certain important functions. The person appointed should it goes without saying, be an individual of the highest calibre and the method of appointment is therefore crucial. We recommend that the President be elected from nominees outside parliament by a majority in Parliament. His term of office should be six years and he should not be eligible for re-election. The details will have to be worked out carefully.

The President may in consultation with the Prime Minister delegate to the Vice President such functions as he may determine.

The public service and police

In order to overcome the political interference in the public service and the police that is now the bane of this country, an independent Public Service Commission and an independent Police Commission should be set up which should be solely responsible for the appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of all members of these two services. Each Commission may consist of three members appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, but such appointments should receive the prior approval of Parliament as at present obtaining in the case of all appointments to high posts in the State service.

We suggest that the members be appointed for a term of four years. They should not be eligible for re-appointment. As in the case of the Bribery commissioners, they should be removable only by Parliament. The Public Service Commission and Police Commission will be subjected to policy decisions of the Administration Commission and Defence and Internal Security Commission respectively and be overseen by them.

Election Commission

There should be an independent Elections Commission that should be responsible for the conduct of all elections. It may consist of three members. It may be appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister as in the case of the Public Service and Police Commissions, the appointments should be subject to the approval by Parliament and they should be removable only by Parliament. Their term of office will be seven years and they will not be eligible for reappointment. The Elections Commission should be made responsible to Parliament.

A code of conduct

In recent times we see an increase in the abuse and misuse of power by politicians and a failure by officials, especially the police to carry out the duties entrusted to them and for which they are being paid. We therefore recommended that a "Code of Conduct" for ministers and other politicians as well as for all government officials should be incorporated in the Constitution. Violation of the Code of Conduct should be made an offence punishable with imprisonment, unless such a provision is made it will be impossible to put an end to the blatant abuse of power by politicians and public officers.

A Commission comprising three Judges of the Supreme Court or retired Judges of the Supreme Court should be appointed to which any citizen may make representation regarding abuse or misuse of power by politicians (inclusive of the President, Vice President, Ministers) and public servants. The members of the Commission may be appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. The Commission will be assisted by a Prosecutor appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and removable by a simple majority of Parliament on a report by the Commission. The Commission should also organize monitoring units to supervise the day to day administration of public officers.

The judiciary

Chapter XV and Chapter XVI of the Constitution (1978) refers to the administration of justice and the establishment of Courts and their powers. This provides for (a) the Supreme Court (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the High Courts and Courts of first instance and other Tribunals. In Chapter XVI the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is given which provides inter alia for the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Article 128(1) says "An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any final order, judgement, decree or sentence of the Court of Appeal in any matter or proceeding whether civil or criminal, which involves a substantial question of law, if the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ex mero motu or at the instance of any aggrieved Party to such matter or proceedings (2) The Supreme Court may in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a final or inter-locutory order, judgement, decree or sentence made by the Court of Appeal in any matter or proceedings, whether civil or criminal, when the Court of Appeal has refused to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, or when in the opinion of the Supreme Court the case is fit for review by the Supreme Court.

Provided that the Supreme Court shall grant leave to appeal in every matter or proceedings if it is satisfied that the question to be decided of public or general importance."

From this we can see that in practically every case a litigant has two appeals one to the Appeal Court and then to the Supreme Court. This we think is one of the causes of the delay in litigation. It also results in additional expense to the litigant. However to avoid this delay in the case of commercial cases, litigants are allowed only one appeal. Why this discrimination in favour of capitalists and businessmen only? Ordinary litigants are not given this privilege of having their cases disposed of early. This is discriminatory and an injustice and may even be a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution which states that "all persons are equal before the law." As allowing two appeals is one of the causes of delay, and involves additional expense we think all cases should be disposed of after one appeal, that is to the Supreme Court and that the Appeal Court should be abolished. There was only one appeal allowed for in the 1972 Constitution. We should revert to that in any new Constitution. All present members of the Appeal Court could be absorbed into the Supreme Court and the number of Judges of the Supreme Court increased. The Supreme Court can be given the power to review its own judgements in certain limited cases.

We also suggest that suitable procedural provisions be made to streamline litigation to cut out delays and to lesson the expenses borne by litigants.

International treaties and agreements

There is a lacuna in the present Constitution on the subject of international treaties and agreements. The only reference to international treaties and agreements is Article 157, but this deal only with the preservation and protection of foreign investments in this country. We think provision should be made in the Constitution to ensure that an international treaty or agreement does not have automatic application and cannot be implemented until it has been approved by Parliament.

National planning

The government of Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike set up a Department of National Planning which produced a ten year plan. Subsequent governments however lost interest in national planning and the Department ceased to exist. We now have a Ministry of Plan Implementation, but as far as we know there is no national plan for that ministry to implement. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution did not provide for the subject "National Planning". In the Reserved List (List 11) there appears only the item "National Policy on all subjects and functions" Whether this was meant to include "National Planning" we do not know. The Government's devolution package provides for "National Planning" in the Reserved List and for "Planning and Plan Implementation at the Regional Level" in the list of devolved powers. In our Interim Report we point out the baneful effects of this division of functions. Clearly, those who drew up these proposals were theoreticians who had absolutely no appreciation of the practical effects of their proposals.

While our leaders thought a National Plan was unnecessary, in India from the very inception of Independence, the authorities realised the vital necessity of a National Plan. If the country was to make rapid progress they realised that a National Plan was essential.

In our view, if our country is to progress too, as rapidly as possible, it is essential that we should have a comprehensive over-all National Plan. We therefore recommend that a National Planning Commission should be set up, whose function would be to draw up a comprehensive plan covering all spheres of activity relevant to economic development and covering the entire island. At the same time we think such a plan should not be drawn up by bureaucrats sitting in airconditioned offices in Colombo with hardly any knowledge of the trials and tribulations of the farmers, industrialists or even the ordinary man in the street. We therefore think that planning should commence at the grassroots level. In our proposals in regard to devolution of power, we suggested that the unit of devolution should be the District. If this is accepted, preparation of a national plan should commence at the District level. Each District Council should be required to prepare plans for the development of the District. These plans should be sent to the Ministries concerned with the subject, i.e. plans in regard to agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture, plans in regard to industries to the Ministry of Industries, and so on.

Each Ministry will have its own Planning Unit, consisting not only of officials but even experts from outside. The Ministry would examine and co-ordinate the proposals received from the Districts. It would also prepare its own plan covering the entire Island. Once a comprehensive plan has been prepared covering the subjects and functions allotted to it, the Ministry would forward the plan to the National Planning Commission. If the Executive Committee System we have suggested is adopted the Ministry plan will be approved by the Executive Committee before being sent to the National Planning Commission. The National Planning Commission will examine and co-ordinate the plans received from the Ministries (or Executive Committees) to see, inter alia, that the plans of one Ministry do not affect another Ministry adversely. The National Planning Commission will prepare a comprehensive Plan incorporating the Ministry plans and also including plans drawn up by it both to fill in any lacunae as well as to incorporate any other features it considers necessary. The Commission should as a matter of policy be guided by the spirit of our recommendation No. 15(b) in Part 1 of our Report namely that we should aim at the creation of an economic system which will ensure a more equitable distribution of the country's wealth so as to provide at least the basic human needs to every member of our society. The Plan may be a five-year or ten-year plan with provision for annual review and modification where necessary.

The National Planning Commission will submit the Plan to the Finance Commission for approval. As the Finance Commission will consist of the President, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and two other members of Parliament, this procedure will ensure that the National Plan will be drawn up in the interests of the entire nation and not of any political party. Once the National Plan has been approved by the Finance Commission, it will be submitted for final approval by the Cabinet.

Any amendment to the National Plan should follow the same procedure. Once the National Plan is approved, all activities of the Government must be in accord with the National Plan. The annual budget too will be prepared on the basis of the National Plan and with a view to its implementation.

The National Plan will be published so that the people will become aware of what the nation hopes to achieve and how these objectives are to be achieved. Since the people will thus be kept fully informed, we have no doubt that they will be eager to give the Government their fullest cooperation in achieving these objectives with the least possible delay, and we will then surely have a "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".

Conclusion

It has not been our intention to prepare a draft Constitution but only to make certain proposals which we think will put an end to the present system of confrontational politics that is rapidly making this country ungovernable. These proposals will also enable the minorities too to participate actively in the process of governance at the Centre and give them the assurance that their interests are looked after. If these proposals are implemented they will go a long way towards achieving the ideal of "one country" and "one people" by getting rid of divisiveness and thus enable us to face the challenge of the 21st century with confidence as a united people.

The Appendix

Proposals for replacing the Proportional system of election

The working of the proportional representation system of electing members and the preferential votes system has revealed the following serious defects.

1. A whole district is an electorate under the proportional system. The district elects several members. Voters vote for parties and give preferences for particular candidates of the party they fancy. This has resulted in internecine rivalry between members of the same party, sometimes leading to serious incidents. Though parties appoint organisers for the old (1st past the post) electorates they do not even if elected legally represent their electorates. If particular organisers of any party failed to be elected an M.P. the electorate is unrepresented and voters do not know who their representative is, or to whom they can go to look into their grievances.

2. If there are malpractices or election offences committed by any 'candidates' or their agents, there is no way of fixing the blame on the offenders as the procedure requires all candidates who were successful to be made parties to such election petition in addition to the party to which they belong. Success in election petitions have been rare and wrongdoers in consequence are not punished. The fact that there is this immunity from election petitions is what has given rise to this spate of unprecedented violence in elections under the proportional representation system in recent times.

Under the 'first past the post' system of election, petitions filed for election offences have often been successful resulting in the election being set aside, and those indulging in corrupt practice's losing their civic rights for seven years. This prevented candidates from indulging in such practices and elections were often peaceful and did not lead to the kind of violence that has become a feature of today's election. All this is due to the proportional system of elections introduced by Mr. J. R. Jayewardene in the 1978 Constitution. The only redeeming feature of the proportional system of election is that it reflects the state of support different parties had among the people. But the defects of this system out-weigh the advantages. Therefore in our view this system should be scrapped.

As an alternative to the proportional system, we would suggest a return to the 'first past the post' system with certain modifications.

There should be single member electorates and multiple member electorates as in the past. A Delimitation Commissions should be appointed to decide on the number of electorates and the areas falling within each electorate. There should be also elected members for the 25 Districts in the country with two members of each Districts. There will thus be 50 members in all representing Districts. With 150 members to represent the other electorates (single and multiple) there will be in all 200 members in the legislature who have both executive and legislative functions.

Those elected as District Members, as has been suggested, will be all independents and not put forward by political parties. In fact political parties will be prohibited from putting forward candidates as District members. The other electorates will be contested by political parties in the old way and the leader of the political party having the largest number of seats (under the first past the post system) will be the Prime Minister and the leader of the second largest party the Deputy Prime Minister. All MPs whatever their mode of election will have equal status and the same privileges.

In making these recommendations we have been guided by the experience and insights of our own people. It is unnecessary to import models from other countries especially from the west, and impose them without discrimination on our country.

Back to Latest News

Copyright ©

Home News Business DhammaWeb Info & Services Classified Search