Eighteenth amendment negates the 'wait for change' argument

The Sri Lankan parliament has passed the eighteenth amendment, which removes the two term limit on a President and transfers to the President the power to appoint individuals to commissions that, prior to the amendment, had been intended as quasi-independent bodies. Though the amendment itself has nothing to do with the ethnic question (and it is deliberately intended not to address that issue) it has consequences for those seeking a just solution to the island’s protracted problem that have to be acknowledged. A full list of the changes contained in the eighteenth amendment can be accessed from other places (see for instance http://www.groundviews.org/2010/09/02/the-18th-amendment-to-the-constitu... ) and numerous analysts and observers have commented on why this is a regressive step for the Sri Lankan polity in general ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAT8WpN72NY ), so this article will not look at those, but rather focus on the effects on this constitutional change on the ethnic question. The most significant alteration introduced by the amendment is the change to Article 31 of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which sets the two-term limit on all Presidents. While others have focused on the possibility of authoritarianism as a result of the incumbent being reelected continuously – which is no insignificant matter – this also has practical consequences for the ethnic question and how other players (such as the Sinhalese public, the Tamil population, the Diaspora, the international community, etc) deal with Sri Lanka in the future. For by removing the 12 year maximum limit for any single President, this amendment makes the current President and his government a ‘fact of the ground’ that has to be dealt with.

The meaningless Sri Lanka inquiry panel

Sri Lanka's panel is a chance to redraw the country's image, not an attempt at reconcilliation

Legitimacy can only flow from power

Denying the Tigers legitimacy took priority over resolving the conflict - and has led to the brink of war.

Who decides Tamils’ representatives?

The European Union resolution on May 18, the first step towards proscribing the Liberation Tigers, also marked the EU’s transition from observer to a partisan participant in Sri Lanka’s conflict. There are a number of controversial aspects to the resolution, including, for example, the directive to the LTTE to go for talks with the Sri Lankan government “without delay” and “be prepared to decommission weapons.” But from a Tamil perspective, these need to be considered in the light of another controversial assertion in the resolution: that the EU does not recognise the LTTE as the “sole...

Collective punishment wins international consent

The notion of collective punishment rests on assigning collective responsibility for an action attributed to a representative member of that group.

Hardly a vote for peace

Readings of last week’s election results are overly optimistic.

Reform call conceals UNP tensions

Poll defeat raises questions over the future direction of Sri Lanka’s oldest party.

All for one and one for all

Do the Tamils really expect the international community to heed our call? Or is there another reason for the Resurgence events?

Open door to extremism

What are the possibilities for consensus on a solution to Sri Lanka's conflict?

Whither peace after the polls?

Regardless of who wins the Presidential polls, the prospects for a revival of the Norwegian initiative look slim.