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.
වඩා වැදගත් ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණ දිනා ගැනීමයි
What matters in the crisis is not who wins but whether reforms are secured. The government has refused even to enact the five commissions the JVP demanded as its price for opposing the no-confidence motion, so the task falls to the opposition, which can do it only through an all-party government. The editorial criticises the JVP for failing to commit to joint action, or to press its own demand to abolish the presidency, when the opposition has the numbers.
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.
අලුත් හෙට දිනක්
The piece argues that the crisis can only end well through an all-party government focused on essential reforms, which the government’s rejection has made the basis of the no-confidence motion. It asks the main opposition to set out clearly the nature of the government it would form, how the presidency would be reformed, what beyond five independent commissions it proposes, how it would settle the war, how power would be shared and for how long, since such a chance may not recur.
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.
ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණ සඳහා සර්ව පාක්ෂික ආණ්ඩුවක්
The PA is close to collapse: SLFP factions are feuding, most of the SLMC and NUA are drifting away, and S.B. Dissanayake has demanded the President give up the Finance Ministry while promoting a national government under Ratnasiri Wickremanayake. The editorial notes the UNP deal with Rauff Hakeem, the no-confidence motion against Mahipala Herath and the stay on impeachment, and urges an all-party interim government to enact reforms rather than a UNP-dominated one.
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.
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.