"Put country before party"

Veteran politician and People's Alliance (PA) Parliamentarian, Ronnie De Mel believes that complete freedom of conscience should be given to each member of parliament so that he/she will not owe any allegiance to party first, but instead put country before party. Making reference to the Supreme Court decision on the 19th Amendment, he says right throughout Sri Lanka has faced problems because constitutions have been framed to suit political parties and not the country. "The British constitution, though unwritten has now lasted for 800 years since Magna Carta - the bill of rights and various reform acts. The American constitution based on similar principles has now lasted for more than 200 years. The Indian constitution formulated by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and others has lasted since independence. In Sri Lanka, the Soulbury constitution given to us by the British lasted for 25 years. The 1972 one which succeeded it lasted only for six years. The 1978 constitution has now been amended 17 times and has proved very unsatisfactory for the whole country," he told The Sunday Leader in an interview.

Following are excerpts;

By Wilson Gnanadass

Q: The Supreme Court decision on the 19th Amendment seems not in favour of the UNF government. The decision has also led to the government taking some other alternative measures. How do you see this development?

A: I do not wish to comment on a Supreme Court decision on a matter regarding the constitution until the decision is officially conveyed to parliament by the  Speaker. I think it is only right and proper for me to withhold my comments until then. As you know the Supreme Court decision is not yet officially announced to us as members of parliament.

Q: You have always expressed support for the concept of a 'conscience vote,' but the Supreme Court has not recommended the introduction of the conscience vote? What are your comments?

A: I have always been a total supporter of the freedom of conscience of a member of parliament. I have even once resigned from my party in parliament in 1974 and functioned as an independent member of parliament owing no allegiance to any party. In the old days before Proportional Representation (PR), this was possible. And some of the finest MPs in Sri Lanka like H. Sri Nissanka QC, Wilmot A. Perera, E. F. N. Gracian, W. Dahanayake, Prince Gunesekara and some others were independent MPs owing no allegiance to any party. They had complete freedom of conscience not bound by any party whip. This was the system which I liked very much.

After the introduction of the PR system this became impossible. While I say that there must be a change in this, along with this change complete freedom of conscience should also be given to MPs as in the old days.  In my opinion an MP once elected should only consider the interests of the country and his people as a whole. He should not be a slave of his party as he is today. A completely new constitution is absolutely necessary for Sri Lanka.

We the PA, laboured for nearly six years like a mountain from 1994 to 2000 and could not even produce a mouse because of intense party rivalry and parties jockeying for positions and power, even in formulating a new constitution. The UNF government has laboured for 10 months and produced a minor constitutional amendment, which now seems to have been rejected in its present form by the Supreme Court. It is high time we had a completely new constitution.

Q: The government it seems will have no other option but to hold an election. In the event an election is held, how badly do you think the peace process would be affected?

A: An election at this stage would be disastrous in my opinion. Apart from the expense, there is the trouble, violence and the dislocation caused by parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka. An election at this stage will hamper both the peace process and the very faint economic recovery which seems to be just starting. It will not only create political and economic instability in a general sort of way, but it will also be a complete disincentive to foreign investment and tourism.

Any plans for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the north and east, which are so badly needed, will have to be put on hold. All our free trade agreements, our foreign aid agreements and so many other things will remain mere scraps of paper. Our stock market, which has witnessed a notable recovery, will again go into the doldrums. Above all nobody will take Sri Lanka seriously when we rush into elections like this without any rhyme and reason.

Q: As a seasoned politician and an economist how do you think the country's economy could be revived with the government facing a 'deadlock' politically and constitutionally?

A: A stable government is a sin qua non for economic and financial reform. We were able to bring in the greatest economic reforms in the history of this country in 1977, largely because we had political stability with a five sixth  majority in parliament. A five sixth  majority is neither possible nor even desirable today. Even if an election is held it is quite possible that we will have another unstable government with a small majority in the circumstances we have today.

I have always over the last so many years advocated the need for some sort of strong coalition government or national government in Sri Lanka. All my efforts to achieve such a government failed. The political situation has become so acrimonious today that I dare not even contemplate making such an attempt now.

Q: Despite an invitation for cohabitation extended to President Kumaratunga by the UNF, the President seems to have rejected the offer. How can you expect the government to work with her?

A: Cohabitation is a difficult process in any country. Even in a mature democracy like France, for example there was some tension between President Mitterand and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac. In fact Mitterand even rejected appointing some of the ministers recommended by Chirac. And as far as I remember, Chirac had to give in. Later on things were ironed out as Mitterand began to concentrate only on an international role and leadership of Europe. There was even greater tension between Chirac and Jospin but they were satisfactorily ironed out because of the mature democratic traditions of the country.

Here too despite great personal and temperamental differences between President Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe I think with a certain amount of goodwill and maturity on both sides, things could have been ironed out particularly since the two of them know each other so closely from childhood. Unfortunately the almost 'mad intensity' of internal party strife in this country prevented such a fruitful cohabitation. If Sri Lanka is to progress we have to make a deliberate attempt to curb, restrain and restrict the intensity of party conflicts in this country by bringing in a new constitution. If I am asked to give one single reason as to why Sri Lanka after having such a wonderful start in 1947, now lags behind most of the countries in Asia, I will give only one answer. "Too much politics and too much party strife."