Dear Friends,

I humbly present below a re-worked set of guidelines for a future constitution of Sri Lanka. It can be broadly characterised as a balanced system of government that places individual rights--interpreted comprehensively as both the "right to" and "right from"--at the centre of focus, as that is where human rights can and should be protected against all forms of tyranny and pretentions by those desirous of power, rather than via idea of group rights.

It my hope that those participating in this discussion will respect the voices of those dissenting. I also fervently hope those dissenting will do so in as a calm and thoughtful manner as possible despite the pain and anguish they might feel with the guidlelines I present--I ask for their forgiveness in advance if I have overlooked particular concerns due to my sheer ignorance, and I also ask for an opportunity to be able to correct my guidelines or make them clearer.

I present these guidelines in this forum as it has at least the intention of serious debate. I believe that reasonable voices have to emerge if there is going to be respect for law, order and justice for induviduals in Sri Lanka. The hopes of nearly 20 million women and men, and children, might be realised only if people voice their concerns without the violence of actions or words.

Sincerely,

A. Political Observer



A Guideline for the Constitution for the Republic of Sri Lanka
(by A. Political Observer based on Professor Vitharana’s  proposal template)


1.0 The State and the Rights of the People

1.1 Recognising the precious independence gained on February 4th 1948, and appreciative of the international treaties signed and ratified thereafter establishing the legitimacy of its presence in the international community, the name of the State will be “The Republic of Sri Lanka.”

1.2 To be described in the Constitution as: “The Republic of Sri Lanka, in keeping with the spirit and vision of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, is an independent, sovereign, unitary and democratic State charged with the protection of all rights of its citizens consistent with being a member of the community of peoples and nations.”

1.3 The State will consist of “institutions of government at the National and District Levels, but also at the local levels within each District, consistent with local traditions and principles of justice and fairness. These organs of the state in their totality shall exercise power on behalf the people only with their formal consent, in the manner provided for in the Constitution, and in particular by observing the sanctity of human rights.”
 
1.4 The State shall be “obliged to safeguard the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Republic and to preserve and advance a single Sri Lankan identity by recognising the multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural character of the its society”

1.5 Believing in “the sanctity of the rights of the individual, the State shall be secular in nature having nothing whatsoever to do in the private affairs of the people of land in the areas of religion, language and culture, and only act on behalf of the people if such private affairs impinge on the rights of citizens.”

1.6 The Bill of Rights of the Republic of Sri Lanka guarantees the human rights of the people and supersedes the authority of the all other constitutional provisions of the land.



2.0 Form of Government

2.1 With sovereignty residing in the people, and with government able only via the explicit and implicit consent of the people, The Republic of Sri Lanka shall be governed by: (a) a President with executive power, aided by a Vice President. (b) A bi-cameral legislature, termed the National Assembly, comprising of a joint Assembly of Senate and Representatives drawn from the fifty Districts of the nation. (c) An Independent Supreme Court, compromising of the most qualified and demonstrably fair justices of the lower courts, who will form the final pillar of the tripartite balance of power.

2.2 (a) The executive powers of the nation lies with the President, elected for a four year term, via a simple majority of the votes cast. (b) He or she is entitled to seek re-election only for one more four year term, while his or her immediate family—spouse, children and siblings—may not contest this level of office for a period of five terms or twenty years. (c) The Vice President, jointly elected for a four year term as part of the Presidency, shall assist the Executive and shall replace the President in the event of death, impeachment or resignation, and will be bound by the same rules of perpetuation in power as the President. (d) Either the President or Vice-President at any given period must be a woman.

2.3 (a) The Senate will conduct elections every four years, but two years apart from the Presidential elections. (b) Each Senator must win a plurality of the votes cast in the respective Senatorial District. (b) There are shall be twenty-five historical Senatorial Districts in the Republic. (c) Each District shall have two Senators, one male and one female and the death, impeachment and resignation of one, shall lead to his/her replacement only by the same gender via a bi-election. (e) The remuneration of the Senators will be set to two-thirds the rate of the President.

2.4 (a) The District Representatives shall have elections every two years, once coinciding with the Presidential elections and once with the Senatorial elections. (b) Each District Representative must qualify on the basis of votes cast for party lists. (c) Each District will be assigned a certain number of Representatives proportional to its population, with every fifty thousand voters (plus or minus five percent) per guaranteeing one seat. (d) The surpassing of a five percent level will require a re-drawing of the electoral map internal to the district, such that that the Senatorial District will have approximate parity of voters in each Representative Area. When the Senatorial Districts as a whole exceed five percent of the electoral allotment, it will be provided a new Representative. (e) The remuneration of the District Representatives will be set to one-third of the rate offered to the President.

2.5 (a) The Supreme Court, consisting of eleven members, but needing a quorum of nine, shall be appointed by the President and with the consent of at least four fifths of the District Senators. (b) Each justice shall serve until the age of seventy. (c) At no time can the Supreme Court have less than six female justices, and no quorum is possible for its functioning with less than five of them. (d) No more than four justices can be from the same age group, determined by the ages forty to fifty, fifty to sixty and sixty to seventy, and no justices of can be younger than forty years of age. (e) The remuneration of the member of the court will be independent of execute and legislative branches and have a mandatory rate equal to the remuneration of offered to the Presidency.


3.0 Governance on Behalf the People
3.1 (a) The President shall execute policy imperatives of his or her own administration and those set by either chamber of the legislature, provided all such imperatives are passed by both branches of government, and without any violation of the Constitution as interpreted by at least a simple majority of the Supreme Court. (b) There shall be a state of exception for those situations that threaten the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the state from forces within or without the Republic, and in such a situation, national security, which is the purview of the President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, will be executed solely by that office for a period of one month to three months, after which the President must consult and obtain the consent of the Senate by a two-thirds majority for maintaining such a state of exception.

3.2 (a) All disputes with respect to maintaining the spirit of the constitution, jurisdiction and law will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court and no other body.

3.3 (a) The Republic’s annual fiscal policy statement, as presented by the President in his or her annual address to the nation, must pass with a two-thirds majority in both Houses, and failure to do so, will require the executive to hear the objections and re-submit an amended version, until the necessary consent is gained by the National Assembly. (b) Legislative initiatives from either chamber of the Assembly require the consent of the executive, and a Presidential veto can only be over-ridden with a two-thirds majority of either the Senate or the House.


4.0 Supremacy of the Constitution
4.1 The supremacy of the Constitution shall be recognised. All actions within the Republic must be consistent with the Constitution, and those outside it shall be invalidated by a simple majority in the Supreme Court.

4.2 The holder of the office of President should have personal immunity for any executive action taken by him as long as he or she holds office. However, all executive actions of the President should be subject to judicial review, and those in violation will be invalidated, and where there is ground for impeachment of the executive, it shall be done with two thirds majority of the Court.

4.3 The Supreme Court shall have the power to strike down legislation violating the Constitution. All existing law shall be read subject to the Constitution.

4.5 Where a question of the interpretation of the Constitution or inconsistency of a law, statute or an emergency regulation with the provisions of the Constitution, or the constitutionality of an act of the President, arises in any proceedings in any court or tribunal, such a question must be referred to the Supreme Court for final arbitration.



TO BE ADDED: A Bill of Rights



Last edited by Political Observer on Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:35 am; edited 2 times in total
_________________
Do not start a war, unless it is already won...

To open up the comparison I have added the excerpts of the Tissa Vitharana report to the APRC particularly items 6,7,8 which talks describes Power sharing, Unit of devolution, Distribution of Powers:

6. Power sharing

6:1 The Centre

6:1 (a) There shall be a Parliament at the Centre comprising of the House of Representatives elected by the people and the Senate elected by the Provincial legislatures.

6:1 (b) The Cabinet of Ministers at the Centre shall be comprised of members of both House of Parliament, namely the House of Representatives and the Senate, excluding its chairman.

6:1 (c) There shall be two vice presidents elected by Parliament and they shall belong to two different communities distinct to that of the President: the term of office of each of the vice presidents being three years.

6:1 (d) At any given time, one of the vice presidents shall be the chairman (non-voting) of the Senate (Second Chamber) while the other vice president shall be the chairman of the Higher Appointments Commission. Parliament shall decide at the time of election, which of the two vice presidents shall occupy which of these posts. There shall be adequate provincial and community representation in the Higher Appointments Commission.

6:1 (e) The Senate should comprise representatives from the Provinces. (This would enable the Provinces to play a role in the national legislature. It would also act as an in-built mechanism against hasty legislation the may have an adverse effect on the Provinces.

Such a senate is found in almost every country where there is substantial devolution of power. A Senate should be considered a unifying mechanism. It would also function as a mechanism to rectify possible imbalances of representation in the House of Representation. The senate could also facilitate consensus building amongst interest groups).

6.1 (f) The members of the Senate shall be elected by the respective provincial legislatures. The election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation in a way that will facilitate the representation of the different communities and small political parties.

6.1 (g) In determining the size of the Senate there is the need to maintain a fair balance between the Senate and the Parliament. A ratio of 1:3 between the membership of the Senate and that of the House of Representatives is desirable.

6.1 (h) All legislation, with the exception of money bills, can be initiated in the Senate as well.

6.1 (i) The Cabinet of Ministers should, in principle, reflect the pluralistic charter and also be representative of the Provinces of Sri Lanka.

6.1 (j) The APRC may consider the desirability of introducing the Executive Committee System into governance at the Centre. This may facilitate the various communities and political parties to participate in the sharing of power in the centre. This can be done for a limited period.

6.2 The Provinces

6.2 (a) Executive power sharing in the Provincial Board of Ministers on a proportional basis has its benefits particularly in post-conflict situations. However a party can opt out of being in the Board of Ministers if it so wishes. Being mindful that a provincial executive could become a breeding ground for corruption when there is no official opposition, such an arrangement for power sharing could be in place for a limited period, provided that mechanisms are built in to ensure transparency and political pluralism. There is a place for an Executive Committee system in such a set up.

7. Unit of devolution

7.1 The unit of devolution should, as far as practicable, consist of geographically contiguous territory, be conducive to balanced regional development and be designed to enhance administrative efficiency. Differences in endowments are to be expected among units. Taking into consideration the existing circumstances the appropriate unit of devolution would be the province.

7.2 Factors such as ethnicity and language cannot be excluded in all situations and there may have to be exceptions in order to address security and other concerns of communities. Ideally such exceptions should be limited in time and ultimately, ethnicity should not be the main criterion for the establishment of units. This should not, however, preclude special arrangements being put in place to address such concerns.

7.3 Any proposed merger of two or three provinces, other than the north and east, would not pose any problem if done through referenda in accordance with provisions presently available in the 1978 Constitution and the Provincial Councils Act No. 42 of 1987.

7.4 The APRC may consider the feasibility/desirability of reducing the number of provinces outside the north and east, at the commencement of the new Constitution.

7.5 The Tamil political parties have been agitating for a merger of the north and east provinces so as to form a single unit of devolution. The Muslims and the Sinhalese have legitimate concerns about such a move in view of considerations relating to security, cultural and religious rights etc. In view of these competing claims, it is best that the question of unit/s in the north and east be kept open for discussion at the peace talks. It is essential that there should be Muslim representation at such talks.

7.6 Colombo and its environs shall form the Capital Territory which shall be a part of the Western Province. However, law and order in the Capital Territory shall be a matter for the Central Government.

8. Distribution of Powers

8.1 For devolution to be meaningful, it is recommended that the majority of the subjects and functions be categorised as belonging to the National sphere or the Provincial sphere. Provision for a Concurrent List consisting of a minimum of subjects and functions, may be considered, but it is best that the areas of concurrency be as few as possible as a means for minimising tendency for the Centre to over-ride the Provinces.

8.2 The distribution of powers should be explicit and devoid of ambiguity. Parliament shall have no legislative power in respect of subjects and functions in the Provincial List while Provincial Legislatures shall not have legislative powers in respect of subjects and functions in the National List. Where a subject or function not found in any list is ancillary to a subject or function already included in the Provincial List, such subject or function shall be deemed to be an item in the Provincial List. All other subjects and functions not explicitly listed in the three lists shall be deemed to be included in the National List.

8.3 Subjects such as defence, national security, foreign affairs, citizenship, immigration, communication, national transportation, international commerce/trade, maritime zones, harbours, ports and airports (other than fisheries harbours without international transportation) and shipping and navigation which are necessary to ensure the sovereignty, territorial integrity and economic unity of Sri Lanka shall be reserved for the Centre.

8.4 Where national policy or national standards need to be laid down, it should be done through a participatory process with the involvement of the Provinces culminating in framework legislation passed by Parliament. Framework legislation in respect of a devolved subject shall not amount to law applicable on the subject within provinces but Provinces would be required to conform to such framework legislation when passing statutes. The subjects and functions in respect of which national policy or national standards may be laid down should be minimised. Where a Provincial statute or a provision thereof is inconsistent with the framework legislation, such statute or provision may be struck down by the Constitutional Court.

8.5 There shall be three lists of areas which shall contain the subject matters within which Parliament and the Provincial Councils may exercise their respective legislative powers and executive functions.

These are:

8.5. (a) List I – The National List

There shall be a list of subject areas in which Parliament shall have exclusive powers to legislate and exercise and exercise all executive functions pertaining to them.

8.5 (b) List II – The Provincial List

There shall be a list of subject areas in which the Provincial Councils shall have exclusive powers to legislate and exercise all executive functions pertaining to them.

8.5 (c) List III – Concurrent List

8.5 (c) i The subjects and functions in the Concurrent List should be as limited as possible, both in scope and numbers. The Concurrent List shall be divided into two Parts A&B.

8.5 ( c) ii In respect of matters coming under Part A, both Parliament and Provincial Councils shall have legislative power which shall be exercised in consultation with each other. In the event of inconsistency, legislation enacted by parliament shall prevail to the extent of such inconsistency.

8.5 (c) iii Executive powers relating to subjects and functions in Part A will be a matter for Provincial Councils.

8.5 (c.) iv In relation to Part B, both Parliament and Provincial Councils shall have powers as mentioned in Paragraph (2) subject to the difference that the Central Government may assume to itself the execution of legislation as well. Examples of matters that should come under Part B are contagious disease and environment pollution issues.

8.6 There shall also be separate lists of subjects whose implementation shall be a matter for the third tier, the Local Government institutions, and the fourth tier, the Gam Sabhas/Urban Ward Sabhas.

First, I must thank your efforts.  Forget about writing one, how many times one gets to read a constitution?
I will only list points wherever I have issues.  The rest of them can be considered generally acceptable.

1.1 When I started reading your post.  The very first point stuck in my head was the term ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka’.  I personally don’t like that term Republic and for some reason, that doesn’t sound right for a small country..  oh well, let’s move on.

1.3 Does this sound like what exists in the US?

1.5 PO’s famous separation of state and religion.  I have no problem with it.  I see this will be a potential friction point considering some wants to maintain SL as a Buddhist nation even though they have no regard to true Buddhist values.  In the US, we see separation of church and the status.  However religious symbols have been embedded within the governmental institutions.   For example, I once visited a capital building, Christianity is all over and good for them.  Perhaps that was the best compromise US got:  Separating status and religion only on paper, rest of them are business as usual.  That model has worked well.

Do you have a compromise here if a friction occurs?  

2.1 You have 50 districts there.  How do you define a district?   I see later (2.4) that you indicate soft boundaries for them.  Hope it is not a recipe for disaster in a country we fight for even one inch of the space separating land lots.  This could be a potential friction point in a corrupt system.  

2.2
Interesting:  Are you inflicting your personal bias here?  Personally I have problem with this.  Do you find this in other countries? What about stating VP has no relationship to P?

“(b) He or she is entitled to seek re-election only for one more four year term, while his or her immediate family—spouse, children and siblings—may not contest this level of office for a period of five terms or twenty years. “

I disagree with this.  Again, have you seen this anywhere else?  Personally I may align with many pro feminine issues and putting a sex in the constitution is undermining woman abilities.  We don’t want to give woman elected the feeling that they are there just because of the sex.

“ (d) Either the President or Vice-President at any given period must be a woman.”

2.3 (a).  Again sounds like US.  I don’t think we have to put “woman” in there.  If the religion is out, so does the gender.  If we have a healthy culture for both men and women to succeed, you will see a healthy mix there.  Putting a female without a culture will really be bad.  I want woman there, I consider it is the responsibility of the society as voters, not by constitution, granted equal rights and opportunities exists.

2.4  I commented on 2.1.  Idea sounds good in a developed country.  Managing boundaries in a densely populated area may be tricky.

2.5 (a)  You have the gender there too.  Again I don’t know whether this is the norm around the world or not.  I like the age separation.  

I have no issues with the rest, I see you have watered down the presidential powers somewhat.  

Beside the issues I have raised above, if I sound like a person who’s DNA has been programmed by constant rhymes and cries on SL minority issues and their grievances, just like G&L cries in US, the gains for minorities aren’t obvious.  You have made a constitution to Sri Lanka, not just for minorities.  Overall it is a good system for everyone.  I see better qualified people than myself here to give you good feedback on what you have proposed.


_________________
"What is left when honor is lost?"

Perl, thanks for the feedback, as ever you mince no words to express your view!

1.1  Here I cannot agree with you, as it not size that matters! Identity of a state as a republic convey a specific message. I suppose we could simply call it Sri Lanka, while making sure it is still a republic in the constitution...

1.3. Yes, it very much based on the ideas of the Federalist Papers. The US constitution was deliberated and they never assumed that great leaders would arrive to guide them, instead they focused on balancing and separating power. I try to make it speak to the Sri Lanka condition: especially on the issues of poverty that is the underlying factor allowing politicians to pit one group against the other. If unemployment in Sri Lanka was 5-8% (not the bogus numbers, but real ones!) I doubt that the young men will have time to go fighting. They will have access to a livihood and a family, and thus a healthy relationship with the community.

1.5 Perl, I have a slight smile breaking out on this one. That is typically you! However, it the reason for such separation is obvious. Religion is private matter. When it becomes public, you will have problems as religious figures will emerge craving power. The destruction of the beauty of religion in Lanka has to do with its involvement in matters of state. When left to the realm of the personal, religion is the most useful for individuals--I think I read a thread with your words on this. Yes, Christianity dominates the US informally, and that is fine as long as they do not attempt to crush the rights of others to practice in peace. Yet, you can see the weakness of the system, as the Christian right gets into politics--they have got themselves into the Middle East soup in part due to the power of the church. However, there is corrective mechanism at play. If the misadventures of the right leads to harm for the Republic, periodic elections will allow the removal of leaders beholdern to religion... The next US president will not come from the religious right, but with a concern for class issues. Why? The US economy is not healthy, with housing foreclosures reaching highs, etc.

Friction... as long as individual rights are protected I cannot see how things can go wrong. (Give me an example on this, in case I am wrong.)

2.1 The Senatorial Districts are the same ones as what are there now. Those will not change. I think there are 50, but I could be wrong. The changes I am referring to concern those within each Senatorial District, where there are several smaller (approx. 50K) populations that are growing or declining or staying steady.

2.2-2.5 Bias? I think it has been demonstrated 100% that women are discriminated in all areas of political life. We must end that with with a deft constitutional mechanism everywhere--why not start that in Sri Lanka? After all women are 50% of the population, they are capable, and do contribute more than their share, and suffer from man-made wars more. It make sense to give them space to lead, without having to deal with the kinds of gender barriers they face. If you are waiting "natural" change on this, it won't happen over night. Even in the Nordic states women's participation is lower than men.

Overall, this a constitution that protects individuals. It has a very strong Supreme Court that will ensure the protection of human rights. I am working on Bill of Rights, but the core of it will be the Universal Declaration I mention above.


_________________
Do not start a war, unless it is already won...

Prof. Vitharana has not fully appreciated the function of the senate. He is proposing proportional representation for members elected into the chamber. Essentially its a mirroring of the house of representatives. The senate is valuable when it comes to obtaining a second opinion. However, the senate should also fill a bigger role as a chamber where less populated regions get a bigger say at national level decision making. If we take the least populated North Central province for example, with proportional representation it will only get around 6% of the power whereas with a fixed scheme it will get 11% of share of power (refer 1996 census). In addition, if North and East were represented as two separate units, the people in these regions will get double i.e. 22% of the share of power at the senate. PO does address this issue in his proposal. He is suggesting district as a unit of devolution and 2 senators from each district. I feel will this will result in an unnecessarily large chamber. Furthermore, I am yet to be convinced enforcing gender is the best way to ensure a bigger participation of women at this level.

I believe province should be the unit of devolution and 6 senators from each province should be elected into the upper house by the provincial legislature. Out of 6 senators, a minimum of 2 senators from each province must belong to two different communities distinct to that of the majority of the province. In addition, NE should remain de-merged so that the people collectively in these regions are given a bigger share of power at the centre.


_________________
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein

The issue of the Senate hinges on how much power it has. In what I suggest above, the Senate is VERY powerful in determining the general direction of the country and serves to check the President if there are problematic way in which he/she governs. Now with such power in the Senate it is crucial to make it accountable. Anything less than 100 members will make it another over-powerful branch that is no accountable to each major devolved unit of power in the country. It is crucial that the Senate be accountable to the voters in smaller units than the province, so local areas are heard. Essentially Athos, your post over the importance of issues of poverty can only be addressed effectively in ALL regions within a province by sending District Sentators. As districts are also large, and there are local concerns within each district the Representatives of the lower chamber will have to voice their concerns on behalf of about 50,000 voters and an election for the lower chamber every 2 years ensures that they stay on top of things or get voted out.

It is crucial to balance power and to allocate the appropriate responsibilities to each branch of the government. An accountable Senate is crucial in ensuring that the Presidency is balanced.

The other important point is that the District by representing at the local levels immediately undermines the separtatist tendency of the province. It is about giving power to PEOPLE, not corrupt politicians. The provincial level will allow less acountability and more power to separatist tendencies.

I am surprised by the resistance to having women included so. Very surprised. If we look at the facts of the world one of the key elements of has been the exclusion of women. To speak of democracy and not worry about women's representation is contradictory. If there are other solutions, I am happy to read them.


_________________
Do not start a war, unless it is already won...

Hi PO,

Thanks for your effort. All of us should appreciate the contribution that you have made.

There's hardly any criticism I have about what you have written. I had an extremely busy weekend and so my response will be delayed, but I will come back during this week with some comments on what you have written. If there is any criticism, it would be on minor things.

So much for what you have written. My main worry is about what you have not written. I have a feeling that you have left out some aspects that a proposed constitution for SL essentially needs at this time of conflict. May be, those aspects need not be written into the constitution but legislated soemwhere else. I will be more specific in my next post.

Thanks once again for your contribution.


_________________
"I do not suffer from Autism, but I do suffer from the way you treat me." -Tyler Durdin

PO

As you can see, I tend to agree with most of what you present.  What I question is whether your approach is pragmatic to Sri Lanka when it comes to religion and women issues.  

In the world of pure sciences, there is a war between theorists and experimentalists.  Experiments claim theory as poetry and not reality.  Without experiments, a theory can’t be proven.  In many ways, theory is fantasy.  The challenge is how to convert the fantasy into a reality with less effort.

The luxury of a theorist or political strategist is to present his or her idea in the most logical manner.  The question is whether that will be the reality or not.  There is one factor the theorist can’t incorporate into the decision making, which is the emotional.  The collective emotional factor can either make or break the degree of success we hope to achieve.  We have learned a great deal from the way JVP tried to convert Sri Lanka in to a red nation.  The ideologies behind Marxism sound so logical and flawless.  Lot of intelligent (one dimensional in my opinion) Sri Lankans fell in love with communism and they failed to take it into the hearts and minds of many Sri Lankans since they paid no attention to the emotional factor.  We all know how this emotional factor has been manipulated in Sri Lanka.

Can a theorist be pragmatic?  My opinion is rarely.  I believe a natural leader can be pragmatic.  He or she can take little bit of everything on the table and present what is good based on his gut instinct.  

On 1.5.  I fully support the idea of separating religion and state.  It is a futuristic idea within the framework of Sri Lanka.  What I question is its practicality.  If the grievances of 15% minority drive the problems we have today, we will multiply that problem by at least three times.

If you say that I resist the progress of women, which is the incorrect opinion.  I have supported women issues on this forum much more than anyone else and I can certainly say that.  What I against is writing down a quota based on a criteria whether it is gender or race.  Assigning leadership positions based on a quota will be a recipe for disaster for potential woman leaders.  Look at the way people form  their opinion on African Americans due to affirmative action.  If you say we should have 50% female doctors, I will support that.  

Leadership should be earned.  

Sri Lanka as a country doesn’t have a leadership building scheme either for men or women.  If you are proposing a quota for woman in leadership positions, you should assign a quota based on income classifications too.   We have to mandate leaders have to have a basic educational requirement.   Your proposal about woman is a very logical one, what I question its practicality.  If we as a nation put the right culture in place, woman will earn their opportunity, just as the way woman is emerging in US.  

I actually believe if we replace 50% of the men in the parliament today by woman (not by the CBK caliber), we will cut down many issues impacting our nation significantly.

“Even in the Nordic states women's participation is lower than men.”  

Why?  After all it may not be the discrimination why woman are not in politics today.  

I am not trying to sway the discussion from the following point.  Sri Lankans as a nation will accept a woman leader than many leading developed nations since we have done that already.  I am disappointed having two woman leaders have done nothing for building potential woman leadership for the country.


_________________
"What is left when honor is lost?"

Hello PO,

I went through your article based on Prof Vitharana's views.

It's nice effort, and worth a study in the discussions at high levels.

Here are my concerns :

1.  I don't think all the biggies in discussion room will be big on tech aspects.
     (This proposal does not readily show a view from a 50th storey bldg.)
    How does this get sold at high level ? What are the biggest differences with current model?
2.  There would undoubtedly be factions looking for specific things and PR aspects like
    who is winning,why,how and when. No faction that thinks they're 'losing on some aspect'
    important to them will likely be accepting this as is. Question here is : is it win-win for all?
3.  This model appears to be a federal with a unitary touch.
    Presidential form of governance with district level devolution does not look like there
    will be active political parties that are bowled over with the idea. If it is US type system,
   it means ( inherently ) that there would be two parties. But the US type has individual
   states with governors. The proposed model does not encourage fed states but only
   provinces. Now, provinces already exist. So how much of this 'different' from whatever
   there is currently ? Where would the SL Tamils fit in  politically in this scenario ?
4. The term for the prez and conditions for 'inheritance' is good. Applause on that.
5. gender aspect; I've same question as Perl. But I'd think, 1,2,3 are most important to
   address, since other aspects are more or less implementation details.

Regards.

Hi PO,

One item that is missing from your constitution is a cabinet of ministers. It is highly unlikely that you would expect the President to run all the government departments by himself. Have you done away with the cabinet completely, or did you feel that it just need not be included in the 'guidelines'?

If the cabinet is appointed from among the members of the assembly, there can be situations where the cabinet is in conflict with the President. If the cabinet is to be appointed by the Prez as in the US, that will create another monster running the affairs of the state and consisting of 102 ministers earning somewhere between the Prez's salary and 2/3 of it.

The other point that I don't see is a power sharing arrangement between different ethnic communities even though you emphasise that SL remains a unitary state. This is a point where I don't agree with your proposed constitution but I'd be happy to overlook it at this stage. For peace and harmony in the country, it is essential that the two communities (Tamil & Sinhalese) are brought together once again. The demands for a new constitution that we hear now have their origin in the ethnic conflict and most look at a new constitution as leading the way to reconcilliation.

A bad side effect that results when democracy is linked with a unitary state is that the voice of the minority ignored on the pretext of accommodating the wishes of the majority. It is to address this imbalance that a power devolution mechanism is put in place. I do not see any such mechanism in your guidelines.

I must admit that a similar system is working fairly well in the USA.


_________________
"I do not suffer from Autism, but I do suffer from the way you treat me." -Tyler Durdin

PO, I warned you:

Quoting myself:

Quote:

Beside the issues I have raised above, if I sound like a person who’s DNA has been programmed by constant rhymes and cries on SL minority issues and their grievances, just like G&L cries in US, the gains for minorities aren’t obvious.  You have made a constitution to Sri Lanka, not just for minorities.  Overall it is a good system for everyone.  

 
  ..... here we go:

kkk123 wrote:

Hi PO,

The other point that I don't see is a power sharing arrangement between different ethnic communities even though you emphasise that SL remains a unitary state. This is a point where I don't agree with your proposed constitution but I'd be happy to overlook it at this stage. For peace and harmony in the country, it is essential that the two communities (Tamil & Sinhalese) are brought together once again. The demands for a new constitution that we hear now have their origin in the ethnic conflict and most look at a new constitution as leading the way to reconcilliation.

A bad side effect that results when democracy is linked with a unitary state is that the voice of the minority ignored on the pretext of accommodating the wishes of the majority. It is to address this imbalance that a power devolution mechanism is put in place. I do not see any such mechanism in your guidelines.

I must admit that a similar system is working fairly well in the USA.

OK, so far we have three people have raised a flag regard for the gender issue.  I will tell you, it will be an easier sell for me than any other you come across in SL.


_________________
"What is left when honor is lost?"

PO., kudos and thanks on taking the effort to do this

Personally, while I realise there is a separation of Church and State in the above., given the experience of various nations under the clergy at various stages in time,  I think there should be a clause that specifically prohibits clerics from taking on or being active in politics.



Last edited by proximus on Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

..... here we go:

Here we go, indeed. The dog-in-the-manger is at it again. I thought this is a serious discussion.

perl, if you want to be so idiotic as to equate the G&L issue in the US with the ethnic issue in SL, there is nothing much anyone can do.

I asked PO a serious question. If you want to answer it, on PO's behalf, I have no problem. What is the point you are trying to make?


_________________
"I do not suffer from Autism, but I do suffer from the way you treat me." -Tyler Durdin

PO,
I know it's fashionable to champion women's rites, but other than that what exactly are we trying to fix here?
What is the benefit to the country if we have 50% women leaders forced upon us by a constitution?
Now I have nothing against women. If they are fit for the position and if they earned it I have no problem even accepting 100% of the leaders to be women!

I would rather have it constitutionally illegal any kind of gender discrimination at least in the state sector.
Also ensure women have equal opportunities in education and employment.

Minority issues are a different kettle of fish.
kkk have a point here. We need to take current situation into consideration. No mater how perfect the solution is theoretically, ultimately we need to sell it to the stake holders, in this case minority with a deep dis truss in majority rule.

Packaging women into a proposed constitution serves one positive things.  It forces people to think why woman is underrepresented in Sri Lankan politics?

When this question raised by rm few weeks ago, my response was they are not as corrupt as men.  Woman leaders knows what shame is more than men.  I only met four woman on this forum and like to see more.  

SL culture doesn’t demand a woman to get into a leadership position.  Many families want their daughters to get a good education, look pretty, get married and have children.  The pressure not to become a leader may not come from SL men, rather woman themselves.  

I have personally taken up the talented woman I came across and encouraging them to take up leadership roles with no success since the interest simply isn’t there.  It is important for us to understand what the role of each component in SL society must play to create a more productive situation for all of us.

Role of monks have now become serving public ego than building up spiritual values within followers.  I wouldn’t blame monks for that, rather supporters.  

Followers of one of the temple that I know are now using the monk as their personal chauffer, chef, cleaner, marriage counselor, cultural promoter, ego promoter, thug etc.  Today those who speak against this kind of activities will be labeled as the enemy of Buddhism.  

Some temples are becoming the Wal-Mart of Sinhalese culture where you get all the services under one roof.  I will support banning them in politics too.  The government has to define the role of monk.  People should be educated on what to expect from monks.  We should strive for separating religion from the state slowly.


_________________
"What is left when honor is lost?"