- style approach advocated
Understandably, the JVP has set off a smoke-screen to cover their
embarrassment of the re-appearance of the Norwegians in the peace
process scene - by invitation of their President without so much
as a by-your-leave from her coalition partner.
President is pursuing this tango with the Norwegians, whom she and
the JVP jointly scorned not so long ago, notwithstanding the JVP's
embarrassment, and clearly, the sharp divide on this issue in the
joint manifesto between the two parties has been resolved to the
liking of the President, and not the JVP.
President herself opted to take this approach and invited the Norwegians
only hours after she and her JVP partner had lost the election for
the Speaker's post. That move itself was to divert attention and
win some international backing as a sop for the ignominy of defeat
smoke-screen has come by way of a debate on Constitutional Reforms.
And the JVP has entered the fray in robust style. Offering flowers
at the Dalada Maligawa and falling at the feet of the Mahanayakes
on the one hand, and throwing verbal abuse at the monk-MPs from
the JHU and stoning their viharas on the other.
Presidential adventure with the Norwegians has placed the JVP in
an awkward situation.Having demanded that the Norwegians be given
the boot, they are now getting entangled in their own web of deceit,
trotting out excuse after excuse as to why the Norwegians must remain
experience is no doubt a new one, and the young JVP is coming to
terms with the reality that opposition politics and governance are
like the sun and the moon. The real danger, however, is their recent
public pronouncements in shooting their way out of the Norwegian
have begun dismissing the very Parliament they have been elected
to, merely because they lost the election for Speaker. And they
talk of mobilising the people, whose mandate they say they have,
to run roughshod even over Parliament by getting on to the streets,
and to do the things which will trigger off anarchy in this country.
spine-chilling things are being said on state-run media threatening
to smash down any obstacle on their way towards implementing constitutional
reforms and that the new Speaker will have to go to Parliament by
helicopter because the masses will surround him otherwise.
is parliamentary democracy for you that the new reforms are hoping
to strengthen. The JVP seems to be getting carried away by the mandate
they received together with the PA, which is 45 per cent of the
total vote, forgetting for a moment, the consequences if the balance
55 per cent also get on to the street.
the new Government won a decisive victory in the 'south', but what
of the rest of the country? And they are the ones who argue, quite
rightly, that Sri Lanka is not just the 'south'. And the JVP, especially,
is getting more than irritated that their nationalist-religious
grassroots vote-base is getting eroded by the JHU.
political analysts have rightly pointed out, even the late S.W.R.D.
Bandaranaike, having come on a nationalistic platform, over-estimated
the "mandate" he received, and came a cropper when he
tried to strike a deal with the Federalists of the time.
JVP might just be allowing their slip to show. There is a frightening
advocacy of the tactics Adolf Hitler adopted to his creation of
an ultimate Dictatorship. Hitler led a relatively small party to
electoral wins through a well-oiled party machinery, took control
of the Bundestag(Parliament), eventually burnt it down, unleashed
his SS storm-troopers on all opposition through a reign of terror,
threw out the Constitution and crowned himself The Fuhrer, leading
a cultured Germany to ruination thereafter.
the Germans loved Hitler all along until realisation dawned on them
too late in the day. It is only a month since the UPFA victory and
the vibes and voices emanating from the new Government, especially
from the more vocal JVP, is on those unfortunate Hitlerite trends.
Constitutional reforms is one thing, but to threaten opponents is
another. The Doctrine of Necessity has been thrown into the public
domain by proponents of a new Constitution, that is,. how to create
a new ' revolutionary ' Constitution without adhering to the present
laws of the land.
other day, an SLFP lady minister correctly pointed out to the deficiencies
of the present 1978 Constitution saying that 18 amendments have
been passed since its enactment 25 years ago. If the Doctrine of
Necessity can permit a new Constitution soon after every election
by a direct vote of the people, and at the rate we are going now,
having had three elections in five years, we might have 18 new Constitutions
(not mere amendments) in the next 25 years.