by Wakeley Paul; published June 2, 2004
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive
The President hopes to glide along by nurturing opposing factions with the incredible hope of making better strangers of them all. How easy it is for any of them to pull the plug on this hopeless adventure. The fact is that the reservoir of her credibility has dried out. Her ability to pursue peace and placate everyone in the process is a fading prospect. The sharp pinnacles of reality are penetrating her efforts to deceive. She is leading us all into a long starless night, brimming with uncertainty. Can we only watch this with the quivering hopes like hapless tender leaves in a strong summer wind?
There is however one issue on which everyone, for reasons as different as summer berries, agrees with this master of con. That is the need to rid ourselves of a Constitution that is harder to amend than the sermon on the mount. Its outmoded strictures tie everyone in unappealing knots.
She and her immediate ally wish to do so in order to abolish the Executive Presidency and the system of proportional representation. The primary reason the TNA would seek an abolition of the Constitution altogether is mainly to abolish its unitary structure and to reintroduce a bill of rights in a new Constitution that takes its place. The racist JVP & JHU will oppose both these Tamil desires, as would many members of her own party. The international world should find opening up the prospect for a federal solution accompanied by an equal bill of rights most appealing, in the interests of fulfilling the current peace initiative.
The Sinhalese oriented English press publishes articles for and against circumventing the Constitution by the illegal device of a Constituent Assembly, a national referendum without a 2/3 majority in Parliament or any other tactic that would be acceptable to a majority of the nation as a whole, which in effect is the Sinhalese majority. The President could well adopt a “hell with it” attitude and yield to one of these temptations. The question is, how could the Tamils respond to such political power sharing by the Sinhalese parties to rid themselves of this monster that binds us all.
In an effort to sound democratic, all parties would no doubt be given an opportunity to present their views. The dilemma which faces the Tamils is whether to join in this venture and present their views; and thereby consent to such an illegal ploy; or object to it, and thereby oppose any resort to illegal mechanizations. The FP made the fatal mistake of going along with the illegal venture resorted to in 72; the LTTE is hardly likely to fall into that same death trap.
What then would the consequence be of the Sinhalese dancing atop their illegal strategy to satisfy their desires? How do we prepare our bosoms for their knife?
Could we cut ourselves loose from a government that has been formed unconstitutionally. Why if they are not bound by the Constitution, are we so bound? How does such a perfectly rational response radiate around the globe? They could well view such a response as spreading again the armed wings of conflict? How more so than the Sinhala action of ignoring Tamil concerns in creating a Constitution for their soul benefit? On the other hand, were not the Tamil reasons for abolishing the constitution, which were ignored by the Sinhala majority, far more desirable than what the Sinhalese have accomplished?
We have to stand tall on the courage to stick by our principles and leave the Sinhalese to their own devices, if that is what they desire, by changing the Constitution to suit themselves.
What will be the outcome of such a bold but justifiable action? None of us can see, as in a map, the end of it all. I can only end this with a quote from a passage in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak to me.”