දෝෂාභියෝගයක් කැඳවා ගැනීම
Ivan compares how Presidents Jayewardene, Premadasa and Wijetunga handled Parliament, noting that Wijetunga let the narrowly elected People’s Alliance govern after 1994. President Kumaratunga, with the weakest parliamentary base of all, ruled more harshly than Jayewardene, and her treatment of Rauff Hakeem turned the government into a minority. By proroguing Parliament without telling the Cabinet as a no-confidence motion loomed, and floating a referendum, he argues she is inviting an impeachment backed by two-thirds of MPs.
සැසි වාරය කල් දෑමීම ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදයට පටහැනියි
The editorial condemns the prorogation of Parliament to evade a no-confidence motion when the opposition had become the majority, likening it to postponing an election in the face of certain defeat and calling it a grave political crime. It criticises the Prime Minister for repeatedly promising debate on 16 to 18 July and denying any plan to prorogue, and urges MPs to stand up for Parliament against the President’s arbitrary act.
විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්රමය අහෝසි නොකරන්නේ නම්, වහා ප්රතිසංස්කරණය කළ යුතුය
Ivan argues that the five proposed independent commissions cannot restore democracy unless the executive presidency is abolished or drastically reformed. Recalling N.M. Perera’s warning that a hostile parliament would paralyse the system and Colvin R. de Silva’s description of it as a constitutional dictatorship, he sets out eight reforms, including ending the President’s power to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at will, giving the Prime Minister the power to name the Cabinet, simplifying removal of a President, and handing key appointments to a Constitutional Council.
අර්බුදය ජයගැනීමට විපක්ෂයට හැකිවේද?
Ivan explains that under parliamentary convention a government that loses its majority should resign, but the President can dissolve Parliament after its first year and prorogue it for two months, powers Premadasa used against impeachment. He expects her to play for time by delaying the no-confidence debate and negotiating through intermediaries, argues that an election would favour a divided government’s opponents, and says a new majority could amend the presidency if two-thirds stood together.
Possible scenarios after no-faith motion
With the political crisis where it is, the need for an all-party government dominates the discussion. The question that comes next is how the PA’s own members will act if the government is defeated on the no-confidence motion.
විශ්වාසභංගය හා ඊට පසු
The editorial says the PA’s fall is inevitable, driven by the call for an all-party government for reform, though S.B. Dissanayake is pushing a UNP-SLFP national government instead. It calculates that even if the JVP and Sihala Urumaya abstain the government could fall with three defections, predicts that the EPDP and CWC would then back any new government, and foresees a showdown in which Parliament, like that against Charles I, could curb the presidency unless the President behaves like D.B. Wijetunga.
පාර්ලිමේන්තුව හා විධායකය අතර ගැටුමක් නොවැළැක්විය හැකි යි
The crisis over the Chief Justice has cost the government its majority, and after Parliament prevailed over the courts on impeachment, the piece expects the President to try to control Parliament. It argues that Parliament represents popular sovereignty more fully than the President, that proroguing it would risk anarchy, and that neither courts nor executive should interfere in its internal affairs, since Parliament created the presidency and can abolish it.
කතාව දෝලාවෙන් ගමන පයින්
Any settlement with Prabhakaran requires renewing the social contract with real power-sharing, but the government’s fine words on devolution are contradicted by its conduct. Moving from Hobbes to Rousseau and modern pluralism, the editorial lists how the President denies power to ministers, the judiciary, the Elections Commissioner and the Auditor General, meddles in the Kataragama Basnayake Nilame election and the cricket board, and strips Colombo’s UNP council, so Tamils cannot trust her promises.
Performance that does not match words
The LTTE has rejected the existing social contract and is fighting for a new one and a new state. Since the end of that could be the break-up of the country, the government tried to crush the rebellion by war, and having found that hard has had to offer to amend the contract instead.
සතුරන් සේම මිතුරන්ද සැකයි
Ivan describes a People’s Alliance government paralysed by fear of a no-confidence motion. Its margin has shrunk from 37 seats before the 2000 election to nine, with no outside support, so six defections would bring it down. Thondaman, Hakeem and even S.B. Dissanayake are restive, the President accuses allies of taking LTTE money, and the Prime Minister blocked lifting the LTTE ban. The opposition must act before October, when the President may dissolve Parliament.