Debate - 18th Amendment and Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka

8/8/2019 Debate - 18th Amendment and Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka

1/32

DEBATE

ON

The 18th Amendment of

Constitution in Sri Lanka

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question

without debating it.

Joseph Joubert quotes

(French Essayist and moralist, 1754-1824)

ABOUT THE DEBATE : NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL

The debate started after we published the article written by Dayan Jayathilleka

entitled "Hardly the death of democracy or the Nation". (Sri Lanka Guardian

September 12, 2010).

Basil Fernando of the Asian Human Rights Commission joined with the debate with

an idea as to how freedom will certainly suffer death under the circumstances brought

about by the 18th Amendment. He pointed out that killing institutions is worse than

killing people. During the debate he argued from a historical point of view taken from

the political culture of Sri Lanka.

Following Mr. Fernando's contribution the Javaharlal Neru University research

scholar, Avinash Panday Samar joined in with the idea that 'Nations dont die, they

are murdered!' Avinash's approach was based on theory of political and social

sciences. He tried to compare the situation in India and Pakistan with the situation in

Sri Lanka. Later another one of our regular contributors, Peral Thevanayagam joined

the debate and she questioned Dayan Jayathilleka saying that he is far from real


2/32

ground situation compared to Basil Fernando.

These four contributors put forward the idea that politics in Sri Lanka were more to

do with personal interests rather than political ideology. The Sri Lanka Guardian

believes that this is an opportunity for everyone to debate the issues so that all of us

may remain in touch with a particular subject. We welcome all of your ideas, not onlyon this issue but on any issue which may arise in the future. As our slogan says, "We

are the voice of people of Sri Lanka". We are interested in your opinion on any issue

pertaining to Sri Lanka. Please feel free to express your opinions.

email: [email protected]

www.srilankaguardian.org

Contributors

DR. DAYAN JAYATHILLEKA

BASIL FERNANDO

AVINASH PANDEY SAMAR

PEARL THEVANAYAGAM

Hardly the death democracy or the Nationby Dr. Dayan Jayathilleka

[September 12, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian]

The cynic in me is tempted to remark that the neoliberal, Rightwing Opposition and civil society

groups wanted regime change throughout the war years and boy, theyve got it. They didnt

change the regime, the regime changed itself.

What has it changed into, why and how? Reading the vibrant commentaries that accompanied

the impending passage of the 18th amendment, two resonated with my own sense of what wasgoing on. In their distinct ways, two writers critically perceived it as a process and pointed to the

quintessential continuities, while almost all others highlighted what they thought were decisive,

dramatic dislocations and discontinuities.

As a student of politics, I have ten observations.

Firstly, had the UNP not set fire (quite literally) to the August 2000 draft Constitution presented
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srilankaguardian.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyd-Ue6zEmIWsMzK_SRHthmwdLPQmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/32

by President Kumaratunga and negotiated by Professor GL Pieris, KN Choksy and Karu

Jayasuriya, there wouldnt have been an 18th amendment.

Secondly, while the amendment rolls back an attempt at roll back (the 17th amendment) and

therefore restores a status quo ante, taking us back to vintage JR Jayewardene 78, it makes de

jure what was de facto, and gives constitutional form to the wartime Presidency.

Thirdly, it brings Sri Lanka more in line with the forms of state that are most widespread in

precisely that part of the world which most strongly supported Sri Lanka in the war. Though

it has its exceptions, this is the state form or regime type that preponderates in Eurasia and

the global South, characterised by a strong Executive or centre, and governed by the most

diverse array of ruling parties, from Westernised nationalists to Communists and centre right

modernisers.

Threat

Fourthly, this evolution or modification of state form almost always occurs in the contextof a real or perceived external encirclement or threat. External threat or intrusion almost

always leads to internal hardening. Circling the wagons is what the Americans call such

political protectionism. This shift is a salutary example of the counterproductive nature of the

Wests failure to fully solidarise with and support Sri Lanka, a practising if flawed democracy, in

its war against the Tiger terrorists.

Fifthly, any game has an umpire and as the saying goes, the umpire or referees word is law, or

else, there will be anarchy. One may disagree with the verdict but the point is that the Supreme

Court heard the submissions of the critics, and doubtless read the papers, and has ruled on the

matter, without dissent.

Sixthly, the 18th amendment is far less of a turning point, and far less dangerous than President

Jayewardena's Referendum of 1982, which arbitrarily extended the term of parliament

by postponing a scheduled parliamentary election by means of a fraudulent and coercive

referendum. This took place at a time when the main Opposition party, the SLFP, had been

decapitated by the deprivation of Mrs Bandaranaikes civic rights. All this closed off the safety

valves and rendered explosion inevitable. It came six months later in the form of a massive anti-

Tamil violence.

Seventhly, this shift is not the death/demise of democracy. Or to put it differently, the critical

variable - the big story - is surely the meltdown of the main democratic opposition. The Sirimavo

Bandaranaike administration of 1970-77 had a far greater degree of structural control oversociety, what with the abolition of the independent Public Services Commission, the notorious

District Political Authorities and the near monopoly of the mass media. Yet it was swept away in

1977.

Worst nightmare

Start with the simple arithmetic. How many of the votes for the 18th amendment, from senior


4/32

ministers to teleplay Barbies, come from former UNPers who crossed the floor precisely during

the tenure of Ranil Wickremesinghe as UNP leader? How many non-UNP Opposition votes

are those of defectors from Ranils stint as Opposition leader? The numbers and trajectories

of the parliamentarians tell the story: if the 18th amendment renders the Presidency overly

powerful, it is Ranil Wickremesinghe who has empowered him. J R Jayewardena would never

in his worst nightmares, have thought that the 65th anniversary of the United National Partywould have been commemorated in the Centre named after him. The Jayewardena Centre was

used for exhibitions and gatherings of Friendship societies etc, and not the anniversaries of

the UNP which can usually fill an indoor stadium. It is not as if Mahinda Rajapaksa used state

repression to reduce the numbers attending the UNP anniversary celebration. No, it has taken

Ranil Wickremesinghe to confine to the Jayewardene Centre auditorium, what used to be the

countrys largest single political party!

What is even more telling - and disgraceful- is that the UNP was reduced to such a pathetic

state of insecurity that it chose to boycott the debate in the legislature on the 18th amendment,

thereby passing up the chance to use the best possible platform, the floor of the House, to place

its critique before the country and on the parliamentary record.

Eighthly, the slew of defectors from the UNP, which include not just the old but the young, new,

and popular (such as the lass from Gampaha with all those UNP preference votes) shows that

the undercurrent of popular opinion is still flowing towards the incumbent.

Ninthly, what then of the future? The foes have it wrong and the fans may not have it right. All

the parallels deployed by the foes, from Louis Napoleon to Marcos, are wrong. These regimes

were either defeated in war (Napoleons nephew by Prussia), or were perceived as puppets by

the populace (Marcos, the Shah), or bureaucratic autocracies divorced from national, religious

and popular sentiments of the majority (Poland). Mahinda Rajapaksa is far more Lech Walesa

than Jaruzelski.

Tenthly, most of the civil society critics of and signatories against the 18th amendment are

those who either support or sympathise with Ranil Wickremesinghe in the inner-party struggle.

Many of these also refused to criticise Ranil during the CFA and refrained from criticising the

Tigers themselves. Of those few who did criticise the Tigers, the majority criticised Mahinda

Rajapaksa even more, during the decisive last war. There are of course, honourable exceptions,

but the considerable degree of overlap between those civil society covens that denounce the

death of democracy and those who didnt denounce the Tigers for their deadly assaults on the

democratic state, helps explain the lack of mass resonance of their appeal. . Their continued

campaign for Western pressure on Sri Lanka has also contributed to the reinforcement and

raising of the regimes ramparts.

The alarmists decrying the death of a nation should know that the nation was far more in

danger of death at the hands of the Tigers than it is now, and anyway, nations are too strong a

socio-historical reality to be killed off by Constitutional amendments. The more hysterical civil

society intelligentsia should not mistake the visible disappearance, possibly terminal illness and

potential death-knell of their party of choice, the UNP, for the death of democracy in Sri Lanka.

What has taken place is a shift, not an ending.


5/32

Article Number One

Nations dont die, they are murdered!

"An attack on the constitution, precisely for this reason is an attack on the nation

itself. Killing a constitution, as an extension of that, is killing a nation. It is killing that democratic

contract which people had made in order to emerge as a nation. It is a usurpation of the

sovereignty of the people by an individual or a collective of undemocratic bunch."

by Avinash Pandey Samar

Response to the Article written by Dr. Dayan Jayathilleka

[September 15, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] Nations do die, in fact they get murdered

despite all the claims on the contrary. Only problem is that one needs to have a little

understanding of both the social sciences and the society in its everyday life to see that

happening. This is no mean task though, especially, for the academicians living in their ivory

towers. It helps, also, if the ivory towers have been provided to them by the powers that may.

No wonder then that such academicians keep coming up with justification for unjustifiable

atrocities committed on people and institutions alike.

If not for this selective amnesia, all of the twentieth century has been an evidence for the birth

and death of nations. After all, what is a nation if not an imagined community in the words ofBenedict Anderson. He calls it imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will

never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of

each lives the image of their community. And yet, he asserts that this imagined community is

no less real, and no less legitimate.

So what is that which makes such imagined communities real? It is the feeling of a shared

history, a sense of solidarity and a sense of belonging to the same nation, with equal rights I

would assert, that turns a people into a nation. Yet, the idea of the nation still remains in the

domain of the abstract. The closest this idea gets in material physical senses is the constitution

of the nation. Constitution becomes the embodiment of all that is shared, the past, the feelings

of bondage, the beliefs and even the hopes.

The constitution, in that, does not remain just another book. It turns into the soul of the nation,

achieving something miraculous in the process. Having a constitution marks a fascinating

journey of the nation, from the abstraction to real, from being just a belief to a material reality

inhabiting the physical world. It is thus a journey back into the realm of abstraction while making

it real as well.


6/32

It goes without saying that the constitution can exist only in democracies. Autocracies and

dictatorships, of any types, do not need to derive their legitimacy from a book, however

sacrosanct. They operate out of force, sheer brutal force and impose themselves upon the

people inhabiting the area of their operation. These autocracies, for the same reason, do never

become nations. They remain stuck in times gone by, remaining the monarchic aberrations in

todays world.

An attack on the constitution, precisely for this reason is an attack on the nation itself. Killing

a constitution, as an extension of that, is killing a nation. It is killing that democratic contract

which people had made in order to emerge as a nation. It is a usurpation of the sovereignty

of the people by an individual or a collective of undemocratic bunch. It does not require being

a political scientist to understand this simple fact that a nation comes out of all individuals

democratically surrendering their sovereignty to a universal sovereign through a social contract.

Needless to say is that this happens through a social contract achieved through democratic

means.

Democracy, thus, emerges as the soul of the constitution and anything that compromisesdemocracy compromised the nation. The 18th amendment does not merely compromises this

but in fact kills that democracy. It is an attempt to usurp all powers and consolidate that into the

person of one man. This is why it kills democracy and the nation in the process.

A changed constitution does not merely mean a changed book. It means much more than that.

It means a new system which does not remain the same as old.

And yet, it does not mean that we can let the nation die just like that. The whole nation needs

to resist this. And the resistance is, as Edward Said had put it, a struggle of memory against

forgetting. After all, no autocrats can erase a people. They need them for cheap labour. They

need them to toil. And for that, they need to keep them alive. And a living people cannot acceptanything just like that. They recreate all those they have lost in their memories. They commit

the killed nation to their dreams. Then, as they say it, dreams keep the hopes of a resurrection

alive, forever.

Avinash Pandey Samaris a Research Scholar at Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi. He

can be reached at [email protected].

Article Number two

Nations may not die but freedoms do - a reply to Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

"Those who have built their lives behind a political patron will see everything

as right. As they have the benefits of a patron whatever they get or do not get in life is the


7/32

responsibility of their patron. A dog who is used to his patron may not know what freedom

means."

by Basil Fernando

[September 14, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] In an article which appeared in the newspaperentitled, 'Hardly the Death of Democracy or the Nation -- Ten Points from a Political Scientist',

(September 12, 2010) the author, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka wrote the following words: 'Nations are

too strong a reality to be killed off by constitutional amendments'.

Nations, as someone once said are imagined communities. As such, to talk about the death

of nations is to talk about an abstraction. However, the discussion about the 18th Amendment

which is really about the 1978 Constitution is about the killing of freedoms. Joseph Stalin

could not kill the Russian nation. However, he was able to kill the freedoms of the Russian

people for a long time during his own lifetime and for many years following. The full recovery

of the freedoms that were lost due to Stalin has not yet happened. Anyone wishing to know

what the killing of a nation really is would do well to read the Gulag Archipelago by AleksandrSolzhenitsyn.

Of course there are many other books that explain what the death of freedom means. Arthur

Koestler's The Darkness at Noon is one such example. Similarly, Adolf Hitler did not kill the

German nation. The German nation has survived and has even overcome many of the problems

he created. However, during his lifetime Hitler killed the freedoms of the German people and a

political scientist who does not know what dictatorship meant to Russia and Germany has not

understood anything about political about political science at all.

Discussions about dictatorships are a discussion about freedoms. What the death of freedom

means can be seen in the actual lives of the people. Take the case of Sarath Fonseka, whatkind of freedom does he enjoy? If Sri Lanka had even the limited democracy that it once had

he would have enjoyed to a fair trial. The accused in the 1962 coup had this right. They were

accused of the attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected government and there was enough

evidence to prove their guilt. However, they enjoyed the rights that any other accused would

have enjoyed and at the end on the matter of a pure technically legal argument they were

acquitted from the charges.

Of course an explanation as to what the rights to fair trial means may not be necessary when

talking to a political scientist. But there are many nations in which the right to fair trial does not

exist. Sri Lanka has become such a nation when it comes to political trials. The possibility of

charging people purely on fabricated charges and thereafter making a theatre out of so-calledtrials and then detaining the person in jail or subjecting him to worse kinds of humiliation, all

these are deprivations of freedoms. To those who do not value freedom none of these things

matter. However, what the death of freedoms can be seen if we observe these cases closely.

With the 18th Amendment completing the work of the 1978 Constitution, being a member of

parliament does not matter very much anymore. With this lies the freedom to be able to have

the representatives to express the views and the wishes of the people. With somebody holding


8/32

absolute power, having the capacity to participate in the elections the possibilities of a free

and fair election dies. Free and fair elections are a part of human freedoms. A political scientist

who does not value the right of people to have free and fair elections may not believe that

anything called freedom has the possibility of dying. However, those who value electing their

representatives through the possibility of the vote are expressing an appreciation of a freedom

to have representatives of their choice.

In this article judges are also referred to as umpires. The umpires can be effective only to the

extent that their judgments can be made freely. Within a dictatorship the judiciary loses the

capacity to make their own judgements on the basis of judicial considerations through the basis

of rational discourse. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler had their judges! There are many countries

in which the judiciary exists in name only. They are umpires by name only. When the judiciary

loses its capacity to be free then those who value freedom know what that means. Those who

do not value these freedoms do not see that anything has changed at all.

People who have the freedom to breathe fresh air know what it means when this freedom

is taken from them. The problems of freedoms are similar. The problem of dictatorship is ofa similar kind. To discuss dictatorship without discussing freedom is to have no meaningful

discourse at all. What was lost by the 18th Amendment was the capacity of the people of Sri

Lanka to be free. Many individuals will experience this daily. They may be ordinary individuals

who want to live their lives without the favour of political patronage. They may be qualified

students who want to get a job on the basis of their merits and not on the basis of patronage.

They will know what it means to have freedom and what it means to lose it.

Those who have built their lives behind a political patron will see everything as right. As they

have the benefits of a patron whatever they get or do not get in life is the responsibility of their

patron. A dog who is used to his patron may not know what freedom means.

Article Number Three

Freedoms and their demise: Rejoinder to a critic

"Heres my problem: If we dont respect the decision of the courts and disagree

with those of the people at repeated elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely),

what do we have left, and who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should

follow?"

BY DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA


9/32

(September 15, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) I have no disagreement with the thesis

that freedoms die, but I contend that the spirit of freedom does not. In any case, the critic sets

up a straw man, since my intention was a critique of the many voices that claimed and still do,

that the 18th amendment marked the death of democracy (and some even opined, the nation).

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with Kalana Senaratnes critique of 18A in the last issue of

the Sunday Leader while I also think the Supreme Court has made some valid and interestingpoints, worthy of serious debate. (Mr Senaratne whose LLM is from the University of London, is

a doctoral student of law at the prestigious University of Hong Kong).

But let us meet the argument head on. This critic sees the glass of Sri Lankas freedoms as

empty or near-empty while I see it as half full.

Living and working in Asia, he should look around him more often and ask himself whether

some of the freedoms we Sri Lankan citizens still enjoy are so much in evidence elsewhere that

we can cavalierly write them off as dead. Sri Lankas freedoms have been diminished but to

declare them dead only means that we do not protect the area of freedom we still have or use it

as a liberated zone to win back those freedoms that have been diminished as well as gain thosewe lost long ago or never enjoyed.

I look at things from the perspective of comparative international politics. Here is an Associated

Press (AP) report from Ankara, Turkey, dated Sept 14th.

A senior court official has warned that the independence of the courts could be brought into

question after Turks approved changes to the constitution...Some 42 percent voted against

on Sunday, fearing the changes would give the ruling Islamic-oriented party powers to appoint

judges and prosecutors close to the party, and allow it to advance a pro-Islamic agenda. Kadir

Ozbek, who heads the Judges and Prosecutors Higher Board, said Monday Turkey is at point

that is "more backward than yesterday."

Does that sound familiar? Does this mean democracy or freedoms are dead (or on their death-

bed) in todays Turkey? For my part I have a very positive overall view of Turkey and its current

leadership, largely due to its stances in world affairs.

Sure there was a referendum on Turkeys recent Constitutional changes, and I would have

preferred one in our case too, but in Sri Lanka the only legal authority that can deem one

necessary is the Supreme Court and it did not, giving reasons why not. Some may have a

problem with the composition and character of the highest court. Heres my problem: If we dont

respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections

(which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we have left, and who is the ultimatearbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow?

[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies,

National University of Singapore and author of Fidels Ethics of Violence, University of Michigan

Press, Ann Arbor and Pluto Press, London.]

Article Number Four


10/32

The banality of evil, a rejoinder to Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

A strong ruler and weak institutions as the current formula for national progress

and the phantom limb complex

by Basil Fernando

[September 16, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] That the nation needs a strong ruler is the

current slogan. On that basis all the earlier objections to the executive presidential system as

found in the 1978 constitution have been withdrawn. To strengthen the ruler even limits to the

power recognized in the 1978 Constitution has been nullified by the 18th Amendment. Mahinda

Rajapakse has become J.R. Jayewardene's true successor.

What is implied in the idea of the 'strong leader'? It is simply that independent institutions are

a threat to the strength of the leader. To make the leader strong all other intuitions must be

weakened. Thus, strong national intuitions are seen as a threat to progress. The giant must not

be obstructed by these interfering intuitions.

Thus, the judiciary must not have any power against the strong leader.

The parliament should not have any power against the strong leader.

His own political party should have no power over the strong leader.

The opposition should have no strength to oppose this strong leader.

The policing system should have no independent powers to deal with whatever this strong

leader does.

No corruption control agency should have any power to inquire into whatever the strong leader

does directly or indirectly.

No press or media must be allowed to question what the strong leader does.

No electoral authority must interfere with his future reelections.

And the list can go on like that.

This experience is not new. Since 1978 the people of Sri Lanka have experienced it and now

they will have more of it.

Now someone who refers to himself as a political scientist comes and asks a question; a


11/32

question that has been asked over and over again in nations where such strong rulers have

ruled: "Heres my problem: If we dont respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those

of the people at repeated elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we

have left, and who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow?"

I have answered this question earlier in a booklet entitled The Phantom Limb: Failing JudicialSystems, Torture and Human Rights Work in Sri Lanka (http://www.ahrchk.net/pub/mainfile.php/

books/348/). It is an established medical fact that many people who have lost arms or legs

continue to feel pain, discomfort and other sensations in the amputated limp.

Such is the fate of Sri Lankans who have sacrificed their independent institutions in favour of the

strong leader. To maintain their pride, even in a pathetic way, they must keep on believing that

nothing really has changed and they are still so very free. This state of mind is very similar to

that of the fox in folklore who lost his tail.

That question raised by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka reminds us of the defense taken by Eichmann

when he was tried in Israel in the famous trial after he was abducted from Argentina by IsraeliMossad agents and made to answer charges for his role as Adolf Hitler's henchman. His

defense was that he was merely obeying the orders of his leader and at the time Hitler's word

was law.

Hanna Arendt called this the banality of evil. That the intellectuals of Sri Lanka had to seek

refuge under such a pretext demonstrates the depth of the complexity the people face under the

circumstances.

Article Number Five

Is it some new political science you are referring to Dr Dayan!

"May I please remind you that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had validated most of

these amendments? Would you still hold Supreme Court as the 'ultimate arbiter' instead of the

constitution that embodies law of the land and not the changed ones which carry the whims of

the dictators of the times?"


[September 17, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] "Who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens

of Sri Lanka should follow" is the biggest question troubling Dr Dayan Jayathillake, a Sri Lankan

writer. What is troubling me, though, is the fact that this is hardly a question that should trouble

a political scientist. After all, even a standard 10th student of Political science, known as Civics

in several countries, knows the answer to this question.


12/32

No one can be 'ultimate' arbiter Dr Dayan, may I please remind you. Do you really remember

the theories of social contract offered by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques

Rousseau?

Everyone surrendering his/her own sovereignty to the universal sovereign in the form of apolitical community is what all of them believe. The emphasis, you will not fail to notice, is

on 'political community' sir, and not on 'ultimate arbiter' as you tried to argue! May I, please,

also remind you of the fact that the sovereignty thus derived is not some 'natural' right of the

sovereign?

The sovereignty and the surrender of rights in the form of general will, loses its legitimacy if

it fails to meet general interest, was a corollary almost all of them had derived. The right to

rebellion, particularly in case if the contract is leading to 'tyranny' is a phrase coined by Locke,

the father of liberal democracy you are supposed to be espousing, and not by some insane critic

sir!

Tyranny is the word he used sir, if you noticed.

Can you please enlighten me where does this idea of 'ultimate arbiter' seeps into your scheme

of things? From which school of political science, at least, as that would explain a lot many

things to me.

The idea of ultimate arbiter is located in the idea that the state has the right to exercise the

sovereign power and to act as parens patriae (parent of the citizens). I remember a decision of

the Indian Supreme Court, among those of others denying this right to Indian state. In a case

regarding the rights of erstwhile small princes, the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court has

concluded that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. It asserted that the legalsovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people, not

with the office of the institution representing it. It is 'we the people' who unite ourselves into a

sovereign state, sir, not the other way round.

May I please remind you of one very similar thing from the Indian experience sir? The National

Democratic Alliance led by Mr Atal Bihari Bajpai had made an attempt to review (read rewrite)

the Indian constitution. The judiciary of India did not only stall the move but also reasserted that

the basic structure of the constitution cannot be negotiated, altered or changed.

Providing democratic governance is one of those basic structures sir, in Sri Lanka as well I

think, correct me if I am not. And any law or amendment that compromises with that does notconfirm with the law of the land and is not acceptable sir.

Framing a question wrongly would never bring a right answer is a clichd fact for those in

academia. But then there is another question that why do people do it.

Political Science defines itself as a 'science' sir, do you remember? Being busy with all your

pursuits, academic and otherwise, I am sure it must have been long since you last read


13/32

that. The reason behind that was simple. It was to ensure that the issues are studied as

much 'objectively' as they can. It did not demand complete objectivity, as social conditions are

not like natural phenomenon which could be absolutely objectively studied, what it required was

keeping the intellectuals own biases out of the study.

Precisely for this reason, it is not about seeing a glass as half empty or half full. The objectivityyou have, unfortunately, is demonstrated by the comparisons you bring in. Even while claiming

to see things 'from the perspective of comparative international politics' the only comparison you

bring in is that of Turkey! There have been attempts to change constitutions closer home sir,

both successful and failed ones. The constitution of Pakistan was amended several times by

these 'Precedential Decrees' (who in turn had usurped power as army generals).

May I please remind you that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had validated most of these

amendments? Would you still hold Supreme Court as the 'ultimate arbiter' instead of the

constitution that embodies law of the land and not the changed ones which carry the whims

of the dictators of the times? And then I had already discussed India, and its Supreme Courts

valiant rejection of any such plans. Do you notice, sir, which paths these two countries, withrespect to democracy and civil liberties, have embarked upon?

All you remembered from comparative international politics perspective was Turkey sir. There is

Norway sir, among other countries. I have chosen this name for the involvement it have had in

the Sri Lankan peace process.

All, I would say at the end sir, In the face of a crisis, the best bet a nation has is its intellectuals,

honest ones I mean. Honesty, in turn, can never be superfluous; it is always located in the

robust critical enquiries the intellectual engage in without fear or favour. With due respect to

an academic of your stature, Dr. Dayan, unfortunately, you do not seem to be engaging in this

honestly.

Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

He can be contacted at [email protected].

Article Number Six

Lucid Critics and Loony Critics

"Prof. Nira's sober yet sharp critique is a far cry from the nonsensical nattering

of murder of a nation death of democracy, Evil Nazism Eichmann etc and is a model for

others."


14/32

by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

[September 17, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] One always prefers the rational to the

raving, the literate to the illiterate, and the lucid to the lunatic.

When it comes to opinions I prefer respected serious scholars to unknown researchers orunlettered human rights activists, who seem indistinguishable from each other.

Here is the diagnosis of the 18th amendment and a prescription, by a distinguished professor

of history who is a product of Sorbonne and Oxford. In a highly critical piece on the 18th

amendment in the Wall Street Journal of September 17th 2010, Prof Nira Wickramasinghe says:

...The fact that academics, lawyers, students and pressure groups took to the streets to protest

against the 18th amendment indicates that there is still room for the opposition to maneuver in

the interstices of power. The question remains whether, as defenders of the 18th amendment

argue, voters will be given a true choice in 2016. This ultimately depends less on Mr. Rajapaksa

than on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and giveleadership to those who believe in it. ( Read Full Text of the Article)

Prof Wickramasinghe is professor of modern South Asian studies at Leiden University in the

Netherlands and the author of several books, including standard works on ethnicity and identity

in modern Sri Lankan history. Her sober yet sharp critique is a far cry from the nonsensical

nattering of murder of a nation death of democracy, Evil Nazism Eichmann etc and is a

model for others.

Article Number Seven

What will be Dr. Dayan Jayatillekas next stupid

question?

" Defending dictators may be a profitable business. It may create some job

opportunities, even though the same people who give those jobs can also give them the sack.

Then there is a cry and lamentation of unjust dismissal."

by Basil Fernando

[September 17, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] In the next article by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

you are likely to see some four letter words. Having no ideas to express and nothing to defend

except the idea of the need of a strong leader, he now resorts to all the insults he can think of.

He cant think of much but he selects the most vulgar. Such is the natural end of anyone who


15/32

wants to be an advocate for authoritarianism.

The funny part of it is that to defend dictatorship he quotes the names of Lenin, Trotsky,

Grasmsci and all the rest. He has forgotten to quote the person he has admired the most for

most of his life: Joseph Stalin. Reggie Siriwardene once called this newly baptized political

scientist the last Sri Lankan admirer of Joseph Stalin. His being unable to meet with thechallenge made to his very claim of being a political scientist is of course no surprise.

His last trick is to find a quote from a serious scholar, perhaps to give an impression that he

is one too. There is nothing in his record to give him any credit for being any kind of a serious

scholar. Political stooging to R. Premadasa is of course in his record, and that is not something

on which one could claim the right to serious scholarship or to any kind of rationality at all.

Defending dictators may be a profitable business. It may create some job opportunities, even

though the same people who give those jobs can also give them the sack. Then there is a cry

and lamentation of unjust dismissal.

It is not a scholar but only a fool who could have asked the question, Heres my problem: If

we dont respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those of the people at repeated

elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we have left, and who is

the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow? Even a student who would

ask such a question does not deserve to pass their first year of university. But such political

scientists are the persons who are educating students of political science in one of our

universities.

.Article Number Eight

PhDs, pork scratchings and Dayans itch

" Basils writings are a joy to read because although he is a learned and

respected lawyer and human rights activist he chooses plain English to send his message.

Clarity is his hallmark something Dayan has not heard of."

by Pearl Thevanayagam

[September 18, London, Sri Lanka Guardian] If you know a smattering of Gramsci, Trotsky

and Tchaikovsky and spend five blundering years in an institution cramming endless tomes

written by ancient scholars with the benevolence of grants, placing both your legs on the table

eating pork scratchings during lectures, you are a scholar. All you need to get a PhD (Doctor of

Philisophy) is write at least 10,000 words at the end this five long years whether you pull it off


16/32

Wikipedia or pilfer from other students and the professori would always award you a PhD.

I actually know someone at Berkeley who did his PhD in Ripped Jeans Culture and McDonalds

also offers PhDs.

Now a PhD in science is another matter and those who do have this degree are very humblepeople since they do not need to flaunt their research or findings and there is a ready market for

scientific discoveries.

But if you write about the ground situation, feel the pulse of the people and tell it as it is then you

are unlettered illiterate according to the gospel of Dr Dayan Jayatilleke, politicial scientist. What

science has got to do with politics is beyond me. So one would class Dayans father as illiterate

since he did not finish his degree at Peradeniya. Yet Dayan cites him on every occasion. Yet

the late Mervyn de Silva, bless his Bryllcreemed hair, is one of the most eminent and respected

journalists Sri Lanka ever produced and he is widely known internationally.

In the same vein, the late Tarzie Vittachi, Manik de Silva with at least 46 years experience inprint journalism and widely respected worldwide as an honest and intrepid journalist is so busy

writing at least 20,000 words a day, H.L.D. Mahindapala, Edwin Aryadasa, the late Denzil Peiris

and other distinguished journalists who did not have time to spend time obtaining degrees must

be illiterate because they do not have titles after their names.

Mr Basil Fernandos writings are a joy to read because although he is a learned and respected

lawyer and human rights activist he chooses plain English to send his message. Clarity is his

hallmark something Dayan has not heard of.

Dayan needs to get off his high horse and shine the torch inwards instead of drooling over those

who managed to enter prestigious academic institutions.

Article Number Nine

Looney critics are anytime preferable to embedded,

and runaway, intellectuals Dr. Dayan

"May I please ask you if you have an honorary doctorate conferred on you by

some university or you really wrote a thesis to earn it?"


[September 18, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] You wrote, rightfully, in your last article that


17/32

you prefer the rational to the raving, the literate to the illiterate, and the lucid to the lunatic. But

then you forgot to add something sir, that you also prefer dictators to democrats.

What other reason do you have for your continuous attempts of shirking away the main

question? The question, by the way, you had asked. Do you even remember that, sir? You had

asked that who would the Sri lankan citizens follow as the ultimate arbiter if not the decisionsof the courts. You had, for good measures, added those thrown up by repeated elections

(which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely).

This author, one of the lunatic critics has answered that not from the whims emanating out of

the fear or favour-seeking but from pure political science. I had employed the basic texts, and

the basic understanding of liberal democracy which you are trying to demolish rather illiberally.

And what was your response to that? Hurling abuses at the critics? Calling them Looney, lunatic

and illiterate?

Meanwhile, you also ran away from answering them. Apart from quoting something from Turkey

and then quoting a much respected academician, unlike you I will say, what answers have youoffered? You are exposing yourself as a runaway professor who hurls questions, does not

respond to the answers coming his way, and then runs away hurling abuses at the critics. The

critics, who are, unlike you, yet to have sold themselves out to the powers that be.

Have you read the article of Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, even the part you highlighted, sir? This

is what you have quoted of sir-




argue, voters will be given a true choice in 2016. This ultimately depends less on Mr. Rajapaksathan on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give

leadership to those who believe in it.(emphasis mine)

As against her take on the issue, what you had offered in one of your earlier articles titled Hardly

the Death of Democracy or the Nation: Ten Points From a Political Scientist was this sir,

Tenthly, most of the civil society critics of and signatories against the 18th amendment are

those who either support or sympathize with Ranil Wickremesinghe in the inner-party struggle.

Many of these also refused to criticize Ranil during the CFA and refrained from criticizing the

Tigers themselves. Of those few who did criticize the Tigers, the majority criticized Mahinda

Rajapakse even more, during the decisive last war. There are of course, honourable exceptions,but the considerable degree of overlap between those civil society covens that denounce the

death of democracy and those who didnt denounce the Tigers for their deadly assaults on the

democratic state, helps explain the lack of mass resonance of their appeal. Their support of

Ranil Wickremesinghe also makes them culpable of the crime they accuse the administration of,

namely the passage of the 18th amendment. Their continued campaign for Western pressure

on Sri Lanka has also contributed to the reinforcement and raising of the regimes ramparts.


18/32

Do you notice the disdain you have shown for the opposition, the most important part of a liberal

democracy to remind you, as against Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, who places all her hopes of

return of democracy on the same protestors? Changing positions and stealing arguments, even

when they do not back your ones, comes easy to you sir, as is evident from this. And just by the

way, did you notice how easily you used the word COVENS? Do you know the meaning of this

term to those readers who might not aware of this word? You know, I am sure. Let me tell thesame to those who might not, after all we are not native speakers of English. Covens means a

gathering of witches.

Such an intellectual repertoire of words you have for a political scientist, sir. Covens, looney,

lunatics and all that. I do not know how would members of Sri Lankan civil society feel on that

though I am filled with indignity. Though it does have an upside that it tells the world about your

intellectual capacities as well, dear Mr. Dayan. Accept my sympathies for the students who have

good fortune to be trained by you. Whether or not they learn political science, they would learn

the use of abusive words pretty well.

Meanwhile, may I please ask you if you have an honorary doctorate conferred on you by someuniversity or you really wrote a thesis to earn it?

Article Number Ten

Fake Pearls and Sprigs of Basil

"Oh dear, what are Pearl, Basil and their tribe going to do when both Government

and opposition are led by patriots, nationalists, who are anti-separatist, anti-terrorist and anti-

LTTE and stand for strong leadership of a sovereign Sri Lanka?"

by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

[September 18, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] Poor Pearl Thevanayagam. She writes:

If you know a smattering of Gramsci, Trotsky and Tchaikovsky... She obviously does not know

that one cannot know a smattering of Tchaikovsky because he was a composer of music, not

a writer! Furthermore she does not know that you cannot earn a PhD by writing a 10,000 word

thesis, and that even an Honours degree at Peradeniya needs a 10,000 word dissertation!

By the way, Mervyn de Silva did complete his degree. Pearl claims that he didnt. One thing that

Mervyn as editor insisted on was that facts should be checked and double checked. A lesson

not learned by Pearl. Pearl should have also checked Tchaikovsky. At least on Wikipedia.

Poor Basil Fernando. What is he going to do this time next week, when the government is in

the hands of Mahinda and the opposition and perhaps the UNP are led by (Basils other villain)


19/32

R Premadasas son, who is quoted by the Daily Mirror this morning as saying I would take

my father the late President R. Premadasa as an example. He is unmatched by anyone in his

amazing development programmes that transformed the country.

Oh dear, what are Pearl, Basil and their tribe going to do when both Government and opposition

are led by patriots, nationalists, who are anti-separatist, anti-terrorist and anti-LTTE and standfor strong leadership of a sovereign Sri Lanka?

This pair has a problem with my citing Kalana Senaratne and Nira Wickremasingha as

examples of serious, academically credentialed un-hysterical critics of the 18th amendment,

with whose basic points I broadly agree.

As for my scholarly credentials, if ever I needed to remind myself of them, I only need to re-

read the reviews of my book by Emeritus Professor Sebastian Balfour of the LSE, in the Bulletin

of Latin American Research Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 597599, October 2008, or the one

by Prof Clive Foss, Dept of History, Georgetown University, in the flagship journal of Chatham

House (the Royal Institute of International Relations), International Affairs 85: 1, 2009.

Article Number Eleven

Advice to Dr Dayan Jayatilleke from an illiterate hack

"The 18A is a serious issue for us as Sri Lankans and although you say it could

be rescinded we are putting our democracy on the line and it is the duty of every Sri Lankan not

to cause this democracy to feed the greed of hungry politicians who want authoritarian power."

by Pearl Thevanayagam

[September 18, London, Sri Lanka Guardian] You know so little that you do not know that you

know so little. This what my mathematics tutor used to tell us. Dayan feels that he is so far gone

in academia that he does not know what a satire is. Does he not realize that even if you did not

listen to Classic FM or are a regular to the Albert Hall any fool would know that Tchaikovsy is a

composer and a fine one at that.

We also have fine classical musicians and composers in the sub-continent such as Amaradeva,

Victor Ratnayake, Sanath Nandasiri, Kunnakudi Viswanathan, Kannathasan and scores more.

Dr Dayan Jayetilleke, Tchaikovsky rhymes with Trotsky and the point I was making was that it

does not matter what academic qualifications you have or what your tastes are, it is how you

use them to convey a message in journalism that is important.


20/32

Please read P.G. Wodehouse, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore et al and their plays and you will find

how they use split infinitives, faulty semantics, odd comparisons to bring the humour out of their

plays. Perhaps you should be mixing with Rajiva for light entertanment. Also, please read Tarzie

Vittachis Fly-by-night columns.

Not everyone can be a journalist but anyone can obtain a PhD provided they have the funds

since there are a million topics. Journalists are the conduits between the academia and the

laymen. Journalists have to sift through reams of academic drivel to get some substance

although I must congratulate you that you have improved a lot in recent times.

I retract my statement about your father not getting his degree and offer you my profound

apologies. As his son you know better. And I do like your headline, Fake Pearls and Sprigs of

Basil. It shows you still have a tendency towards humour and that is a good thing. But seriously

you need to lighten up and more importantly listen to your inner self. Leave aside prejudices and

partisan mentality and your intellect would take you a long way.

The 18A is a serious issue for us as Sri Lankans and although you say it could be rescinded

we are putting our democracy on the line and it is the duty of every Sri Lankan not to cause this

democracy to feed the greed of hungry politicians who want authoritarian power.

I once requested that you take up politics but now I find you have an agenda towards Rajapakse

regime, your intellect and knowledge notwithstanding, and on hindsight I realize you would

have been a peril to our democracy had you listened to me. Just as you joined the Tamil rebels

without thinking you are embarking on a political discourse which would cause you the same

damage. So take some advice from an illiterate fake pearl whose only credentials are speaking

from the heart and sincerity.

Article Number Twelve

RESEARCH THIS!

" This research scholar then attempts to set up as antinomies, a paragraph I

quoted with approval from Prof Nira Wickramasainghas article on the 18th amendment, and my

own views as contained in another paragraph that he excerpts from one of my articles."

BY DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA

[ September 18, Singapore, Sri Lanka Guardian] It is a sad day when the JNU supposedly has

a research scholar who cannot understand English. Its even sadder that he is featured on a

website that borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded.


21/32

He writes: What other reason do you have for your continuous attempts of shirking away the

main question? The question, by the way, you had asked. Do you even remember that, sir?

You had asked that who would the Sri Lankan citizens follow as the ultimate arbiter if not

the decisions of the courts. You had, for good measures, added those thrown up by repeated

elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely).

This is really loony. It was I who posed the question, albeit rhetorically, but he accuses me

of shirking the main question, which by his own admission, I myself had asked! He hasnt

answered the question I posed, except to mention some names of Social Contract theorists. So

what? Whats the answer to my query?

This research scholar then attempts to set up as antinomies, a paragraph I quoted with

approval from Prof Nira Wickramasainghas article on the 18th amendment, and my own views

as contained in another paragraph that he excerpts from one of my articles.

He further writes: Have you read the article of Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, even the part you

highlighted, sir? This is what you have quoted of sir-




argue, voters will be given a true choice in 2016. This ultimately depends less on Mr. Rajapaksa

than on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give

leadership to those who believe in it.(emphasis mine)

...Do you notice the disdain you have shown for the opposition, the most important part of a

liberal democracy to remind you, as against Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, who places all her

hopes of return of democracy on the same protestors?

This is truly pathetic. What does the passage actually say? ...The fact that academics, lawyers,

students and pressure groups took to the streets to protest against the 18th amendment

indicates that there is still room for the opposition to maneuver in the interstices of power.

This was quoted by me to show that democracy and freedoms were not dead and had hardly

been murdered, still less parallels permissible with Nazi fascism!If that were the case there

could not be still room for the opposition to maneuver in the interstices of power.

Secondly, according to the passage quoted, on whom does Prof Wickremesingha place all her

hopes? Certainly NOT on the same protestors but precisely on the will of opposition politicalparties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give leadership to those who believe in it.

So, it is not on the same protestors, but on the opposition political parties! And that too, if they

have the will... alternative democratic vision... (and) leadership! This is exactly what Ive been

saying, here and from 1997 onwards!

This alleged research scholar then wishes to know whether I have an honorary doctorate

conferred on you by some university or you really wrote a thesis to earn it? Well, as a research


22/32

scholar, that should be easy enough for him to research, and the fact that he hasnt done so,

tells me the kind of research scholar he is! I suggest Google Scholar as a start, or maybe

the website of the Institute of South Asian Studies of the National University of Singapore. Or

he can write to Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the JNU, SD Muni (one of my

colleagues down the corridor).

Article Number Thirteen

The Decline of Sri Lanka and Dayans

Homemade Puny Mind

It takes a puny mind and a cynical outlook to be celebrating a dictatorship.

The intellectual tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and

visionless intellectuals. These include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an

offshoot of this tradition. There is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph

Stalin, JR Jayawardene, R Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha. Within the last few days, he

has demonstrated the nature of his capacities and the tradition he represents. He is quite a

homemade product.

by Basil Fernando

[September 18, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] The Burmese people are still struggling

to overcome the ruin of their country by the Dictator Ne Win. Ne Wins authoritarian system

destroyed all the basic institutions of Burma. Over several decades, the dictatorship destroyed

all the traditions of pluralism. However, it could not destroy the resistance. The resistance still

goes on despite the devastation caused to the whole nation which has ruined the hopes and

expectations of all the peoples of Burma. Ne Win represented himself as a patriot. His patriotism

was not about the well-being of the people.

The people of Indonesia were able to defeat the military rule of Suharto. However, the

devastation caused by the dictatorship has affected all the areas of Indonesian life. It is difficult

to imagine how long it will take for Indonesia to emerge as a nation within which the well-being

of the population can be brought to anything that can be closer to what may be called a normalsituation, even within the context of poorer nations.

The people of The Philippines were able to defeat the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos within

a shorter time than the people of Burma and Indonesia. However, the devastating effect of his

authoritarian rule still lives on. The possibility of an organized way of life within which the well-

being of the majority of the Filipinos can be ensured remains a distant dream. All the basic

institutions of democracy in the Philippines have been undermined by Marcos dictatorship and,


23/32

even with the Peoples Power Revolution, and many efforts, nothing very much has substantially

changed. It is easy to destroy liberal democracy. It is a much more formidable task to recreate it.

The people of Pakistan were under several military dictatorships. They have overcome

these dictatorships from time to time. At the moment, Pakistan has a democratically elected

government. However, the terrible effect of these dictatorships lives on. All the basic institutions,such as the police, the court systems and civil administration, have been affected and it

has proved almost an impossible task to create an organized way of life that can create the

conditions of well-being for the people of Pakistan. I visited a Pakistani family a few hours ago.

They have just come back from a visit to their home in Karachi. The situation of the city was

described by my friends wife by saying that, Within the house, we are safe. But outside its a

terrible situation. Her husband described how in order to avenge one murder about 150 people

have been killed. The legacy of lawlessness that is created by dictatorship makes that kind of a

hell for the citizens of the country.

These are only a few examples from Asia. The other well-known examples from the west

illustrate this same problem. The devastation caused by Stalins dictatorship created such a ruinthat creating a sense of order and stability has remained a problem beyond description for the

people of Russia. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn described the situation caused by Stalins dictatorship

as abysmal lawlessness. Once recreating possibilities for peoples participation in the affairs of

life and the organization of their own well-being after such a situation has remained a problem

even after a period of change initiated by the famous speech of Nikita Khruschev in 1956.

Germany faced such a situation after the First World War. It created the background for the

emergence of Hitler and all the cruelties of followed. It was only due to the intervention of

the western powers through the Marshall plan that conditions were created in which German

people were able to deal with the effects of the Nazi dictatorship. This process allowed them to

understand the conditions which created the possibilities for the dictatorship of Hitler. Almostevery area of life was rethought and reorganized within Germany to get over the effects of

the dictatorship and to prevent its reoccurrence. In the constitutional sphere, the limitations

of the Weimar Constitution were examined and many constitutional and legal reforms were

introduced to overcome those limitations. The creation of an extraordinary court, known as the

constitutional court, was also a product of the attempt to deal with the devastating effects of

authoritarian rule.

Sri Lanka entered into a period of authoritarian rule in 1978. The course of this authoritarian rule

has been chronicled by many. Among such works is Dr. Rajiva Wijesinhas Declining Sri Lanka,

2007. He narrates how JR Jayawardenes personal ambitions created a political system that

caused the conditions for the ethnic conflict to turn into the kind of war that we now know about.Would there have been that war if there the 1978 Constitution was not introduced and there

was room left for solving the problem by other means? The 1978 Constitution destroyed all the

public institutions and is a story that is very well known and discussed.

R Premadasa, getting into the shoes of JR Jayawardene, followed by Chandrika

Bandaranayake and then by Mahinda Rajapaksha, did not make any change for the better as

far as the authoritarian system was concerned. The change of one leader for the other did not


24/32

cause fundamental changes in the system that was introduced through the 1978 Constitution.

The 18th Amendment has completed the course of authoritarianism. The problem for the future

is not as to when and who will replace Mahinda Rajapaksha, but about the manner in which the

authoritarian scheme of 1978 could be replaced. Like the people of the countries cited above,

for the people of Sri Lanka this will not be an easy task.

It takes a puny mind and a cynical outlook to be celebrating a dictatorship. The intellectual

tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and visionless intellectuals. These

include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an offshoot of this tradition. There

is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph Stalin, JR Jayawardene, R

Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha. Within the last few days, he has demonstrated the nature

of his capacities and the tradition he represents. He is quite a homemade product.

In my last comment in this series, I asked what will be the next stupid question of Dayan

Jayatilleka. In his response he has raised that question. He asked what the likes of me will do

when Sajith Premadasa becomes the UNP leader next week. Such stupid questions require no

answer.

In the lives of Sri Lankans the authoritarian system will continue to cause havoc. It will destroy

the right to fair trial and the right to all basic freedoms, including the freedom of expression

and association. Above all, people will lose the right to representation. All this causes practical

problems to people in their daily lives. The ordinary folk, who the likes of Dayan would like to

think of as illiterates, will bear the brunt of all these problems. It is for the people themselves to

find the solutions to all these riddles caused by their selfish leaders. If selfishness is patriotism,

then Dayan is right when he describes Sri Lankas dictators as patriots.

Article Number Fourteen

Fernando's Futile Follies

" I reiterate my main question: If we dont respect the decision of the courts (the

legal system) and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections (democracy, popular

sovereignty), what do we have left, who is the ultimate arbiter -- the unaccountable Asian

Human Rights Commission and its leader-in-permanent-exile?"

by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

[September 19, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] Basil Fernando opines

that: The intellectual tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and

visionless intellectuals. These include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an

offshoot of this tradition.


25/32

I gladly admit to being an offshoot of this tradition. Since Basil Fernando was never even

a minor, passing figure in the intellectual tradition of Colombo I am both amused and

unsurprised that he displays this huge chip on his shoulder.

Now I havent heard of a Mervin de Silva though I have heard of Mervyn de Silva (the guyafter whom Sri Lankas top journalism award is named), Dr Mervyn D De Silva (development

administrator) and one Mervyn Silva (MP). Which one is Mr Fernando referring to, why cant he

get the spelling right ...and could he kindly cite a single person of repute or with credentials, Sri

Lankan or non-Sri Lankan, to support his view?

Fernando says that There is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph Stalin,

JR Jayewardene, R Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha. Now thats a laugh. I dont know

where on earth (quite literally) Basil Fernando was when JR Jayewardenes government

indicted me as the First Accused on 14 counts under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the

Emergency. The first charge was conspiracy to overthrow the State through violence. The

8th accused was K Pathmanabha, founder leader of the EPRLF. Among those indicted wasDayapala Tiranagama. Years later, in 1992, JR Jayewardene attempted to sue me (story in the

Sunday Times). Now if these are signs of admiration...for JR Jayewardene as Basil Fernando

alleges, I think he should seek some professional help because he has serious issues...and I

dont mean with Eichmann or Mahinda! It also shows that everything he says on anything must

be taken not just with a pinch of salt but with the salt shaker at hand.

I reiterate my main question: If we dont respect the decision of the courts (the legal system)

and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections (democracy, popular sovereignty),

what do we have left, who is the ultimate arbiter -- the unaccountable Asian Human Rights

Commission and its leader-in-permanent-exile?

Article Number Fifteen

Origins of Sri Lankas mess Dayan admits being a

proud product of the " Underya" tradition

"As for Mervin Silva and late Mervin De Silva, there is not much of a difference

between them from the point of view of their political philosophies. Both are cynics who have

learned the art of political survival. One behaves like a joker and the other was arrogant

and smart. Both follow the Colombo style Underya tradition, and Dayan says he is proud

about it."

by Basil Fernando


26/32

[September 19, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] This discussion is about the 1978 Constitution

and its enhancement by the 18th Amendment. The 1978 Constitution created an executive

president who is above the law. With that, the law was no longer supreme in Sri Lanka. When

the law is not supreme, the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the head of state. What he

does then becomes the law. If illustration is needed, the cases filed against Sarath Fonsekaare good examples. Many lesser-known citizens have faced this situation continuously. Some

have disappeared and others are in jail without ever having committed a crime. Thousands of

families have been ruined. However, there is nothing that can be done about it, except to appeal

for the supreme leaders mercy. There is nothing else left for citizens to follow or hope for. A

man with self respect, like Sarath Fonseka, will not kneel before the supremo. He has no option

but to suffer the consequences.

The references to R. Premadsa and Mahinda Rajapakse are about 1978 constitution. They are

creatures of this constitution. The creator was J.R. Jayawardene. Mahinda Rajapakse admires

J.R. Jayawardenes political model. Now even persons jailed by Jayawardene one time or

another have come to play pooja to Jayawardene by accepting his political model. Dayan is oneof them. When, I mentioned admiration for Jayawadene, I meant admiration and acceptance of

his political model. Many of one time opponents of Jayawardene, including Mahinda Rajapakse,

have now come to be ardent followers of his political model. Dayan is no exception.

As for Mervin Silva and late Mervin De Silva, there is not much of a difference between them

from the point of view of their political philosophies. Both are cynics who have learned the art of

political survival. One behaves like a joker and the other was arrogant and smart. Both follow

the Colombo style Underya tradition, and Dayan says he is proud about it. The fact is that this

is no tradition that is worthy of admiration. The cumulative effect of many centuries of practice of

Brahmin shrewdness is what that there is. Nothing creative is allowed to grow and there is neck-

cutting at every turn.

It is that Colombo Tradition that created this 1978 model of the political system. Dayan admits

to being a proud product of that tradition. All my life I have avoided been part of that despicable

tradition.

The mess that this country is in today is the result created by all these great intellects.

Article Number Sixteen

Research this does not mean Google this Dr

Dayan, or maybe that is your idea of research!


27/32

" And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did notexplain that in the rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think

that using abuses is the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from

a background after all. "


[September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] Reading your last piece (unfortunately one

cannot call it an article by any stretch of imagination) came as a much needed comic relief Dr

Dayan. Having been stuck in reading and writing all sort of tiring, jargon laden academic articles

had made me yearning for a break. I am indebted to you for providing that by writing such an

unintelligent piece, so entirely untaxing on the brain.

Yet, responding to the cyclical argument, bereft of any intelligence, you have been making

would be a good exercise for the sake of the readers who have been following this debate.

Let me, first, take up the question you asked and claimed to have gotten no replies but a few

social contract theories. Forget my English language skills, and I would not ask about yours

as you have made a macabre display of that in any case. The answer to your question of who

would be the ultimate arbiter was right there in the second para of my article. But then it takes

some intelligence to understand that Dr Dayan. I am copy-pasting it (your idea of research in

any case) from my own article.

The idea of ultimate arbiter is located in the idea that the state has the right to exercise the

sovereign power and to act as parens patriae (parent of the citizens). I remember a decision

of the Indian Supreme Court, among those of others denying this right to Indian state. In a

case regarding the rights of erstwhile small princes, the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court

has concluded that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. It asserted that the

legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people,

not with the office of the institution representing it. It is 'we the people' who unite ourselves into

a sovereign state, sir, not the other way round. (emphasis added this time, for your benefit)

So what about English now? What about this sovereign principle that barring people nothing is

sovereign! It was in 1972, that the supreme court of India delivered this verdict. A constitutional

bench of the supreme court on that. Just to help you a bit more, the issue resurfaced in India a

quarter century later. This time it was democratically elected, yet right wing government, which

wanted to review(they really wanted to change it but unlike you they could come up with a better

phrase) Indian constitution. They actually went ahead and constituted a National Commission

to Review the Working of the Constitution but then Supreme Court came into picture again and

reaffirming that basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered.

It reaffirmed its position that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. The Judges of


28/32

the supreme court of India, for your entire bloated ego, no less intellectual to you is a fact you

would concede, I hope, just hope. So let me put it again what they have to say in bulleted forms,

the biggest form of intellectual articulation in your tradition

* There exists nothing as sovereign power of the state

* The legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with thepeople, not with the office of the institution representing it.

Do you get your answer now? There exists nothing called ultimate arbiter Mr Dayan. Not

in democracies at least. It is the people and only the people, and just by the way, read your

basic political science again. You would do well to begin with the theories of social contract,

especially the parts which deal with the legitimacy of the contract. You will get a phrase, termed

the right to rebellion there. Let me quote again from my own article, unlike the superb capacity

of copy pasting you have shown, to the extent of copypasting a meaningless press report !

The right to rebellion, particularly in case if the contract is leading to 'tyranny' is a phrase coined

by Locke, the father of liberal democracy you are supposed to be espousing, and not by some

insane critic sir!

Do you get the answer now, at least? That there exists nothing called ultimate arbiter!

Anyways, lets come to the next point. I loved the way you exposed your mindset in the very

opening the crap you have written. Let me quote you

It is a sad day when the JNU supposedly has a research scholar who cannot understand

English. Its even sadder that he is featured on a website that borrowed and adapted the name

of the journal my father founded.

Leave the English part aside, as the readers could judge for themselves and also, the first thing

my professors in JNU had taught me was that Speak Social Science not English! But thenleave it as I am sure you would not even get close to understand what this means.

So I could see the pain you had of seeing this alleged research scholar on the website that

borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded. Ah I could see the tears

rolling down. The pain of having lost those beautiful days, when you used to be the lords

floating with power. Those beautiful days when you used to own everything, even the names. I

sympthise with you Dr Daya. But then those feudal days are gone.

Now I can understand your cravings for a strong leader far better. That it is as much inside as

outside. That your rants are the rants of someone who had lost a lot to democracy. You gave

yourself away in this one Dr Dayan, but then thats actually good.

Coming to the final point, suffice would be to quote your own analysis of that paragraph

you quoted. Here we go then Secondly, according to the passage quoted, on whom does

Prof Wickremesingha place all her hopes? Certainly NOT on the same protestors but

precisely on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and

give leadership to those who believe in it. So, it is not on the same protestors, but on the

opposition political parties! And that too, if they have the will... alternative democratic vision...


29/32

(and) leadership! This is exactly what Ive been saying, here and from 1997 onwards!

Do you really not see the difference even now? She is placing her hopes, rightfully pointed out

by you, on the will of opposition political parties . She has her faith, even if very little, left in

those political parties. And what is your opinion of those political parties? You had completely

exposed yourself in the very first article title hardly the death You had asserted that theprotestors had civil society covens in considerable overlap with those who did not denounce

the Tigers and so on. That gives away your opinion of the political parties in opposition and the

civil society alike.

Any sensible political scientist, in this scenario of absence of any credible opposition as

identified by himself, will protest such undemocratic assaults on the constitution with much

more commitment. But then that presupposes the sensibility part being present, does not it?

And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did not explain that in the

rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think that using abuses is

the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from a background afterall.

Yet I cannot resist myself from quoting a brilliant writer. Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of

scoundrels, said Dr. Johnson. And I am not saying it. More on patriotism later, I promise you

sir.

Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

He can be contacted at [email protected].

Article Number Seventeen

One Big Lie: Last Post on Pandey

While I do not consider the Indian Supreme Court an authority on political theory

and philosophy, and would certainly not accord it status as a supreme guide for Sri Lankas

citizenry, I rather doubt that the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court concluded that political

sovereignty lied with the people

by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

(September 19, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) I must congratulate JNU research scholar

Avinash Pandey Samar on producing a rarity: a veritable collectors item of ignorance and

incoherence.


30/32

He quotes once again a passage of his prose which he is particularly proud of and rightly so,

but not for the reasons he would imagine. I too found it fascinating and wish to share it with the

reader:

...The full bench of the Indian Supreme Court ...asserted that ...political sovereignty lied with

the people....

In case one cannot believe ones eyes, he reiterates this two paragraphs later: ...political

sovereignty lied with the people, not with the office of the institution representing it.

Incredible as it may seem, the good research scholar Mr Pandey Samar follows up this

profundity with two pointed questions:

So what about English now? Do you get your answer now?

What indeed about English now, Mr Pandey, what indeed!

While I do not consider the Indian Supreme Court an authority on political theory and

philosophy, and would certainly not accord it status as a supreme guide for Sri Lankas

citizenry, I rather doubt that the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court concluded that political

sovereignty lied with the people. Unless he produces a direct quote with source, I would have

to conclude that it is Avinash Pandey Samar who has lied in this regard.

To answer his second question, no I havent got my answer now. I have in fact one more

questions than I had before, namely who lied to whom, where, why and when?

Article Number Eighteen

Classic case of arrogant stupidity and schizophrenic

hallucinations of Mr. Dayan: Last Rejoinder

I may find you the same instances from any democratic countries

of the world, but then your idea of democracies is apparently construed by

Stalinist Soviet Union. What are you going to throw at me now? Some quote

from the apartheid-era South Africa? Or some glorious example of political

sovereignty of the state coming from the Kingdoms of the Middle East?



31/32

(September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Seldom do the self-designated intellectuals

expose themselves as comprehensively as you have done in your last post Mr Dayan. Accept

my congratulations for making such a spectacular show of stupidity while absconding from the

main issues.

First thing first, let me give you the evidence for the political sovereignty lies with the peopleprinciple from a different country as you do not consider the Indian supreme court an authority

on political theory and philosophy.

So forget India for a moment, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, among

others, has held this principle time and again. Have you ever heard of the Chisholm v.

Georgia case of 1973,(External Link), in the Supreme Court of U.S.A? The court had held that

sovereignty vests in the people. The court, then, had ABROGATED the sovereign immunity of

the State while granting the federal courts with the power of hearing disputes between citizens

and the state. Do you understand the meaning of that Mr. Dayan? Do you get who is the

ultimate sovereign then?

You would do well to know that the principle was reaffirmed again in a later development in

the 1972 amendment of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court, then had ruled

against the sovereign immunity of the state again and allowed the citizens to sue the state

even for money damages, leave aside bigger felonies states can engage in. You can have

a look (as reading is, apparently, too tough an exercise for you) on this link. ( External Link )

Moving on to Indian experience, a full bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of 13 judges,

in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973 AIR 1461, 1973Suppl.SCR 1, 1973( 4 )SCC

225,) had made it absolutely clear that that Parliament's constituent power was subject

to inherent limitations and that it could not use its amending powers under Article 368

to

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	srilanka-guardian
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Debate - 18th Amendment and Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka

Documents