Talking Point

The Four Tracks

I explained that the presidential scrutiny of the draft constitution is being carried out quite robustly on four parallel tracks:

Track 1

Attorney General is involved since 27 June in carrying out a detailed legal check of the constitution as it is adopted. Her formal legal opinion, which is a must before ratification, is expected early next week. However her preliminary opinion, more in the form of an issues paper, is expected by mid this week.

Track 2

Preventive mechanisms for possible jolts in the intended 'instant migration' to the new system are being developed under the oversight of a panel of cabinet ministers.

This includes expediting the police bill, criminal procedure code, and creating enabling legislation for rules that would otherwise be deemed redundant.

The police bill is almost finished by a parliamentary joint committee of social affairs and national security. The criminal code is almost half done by another parliamentary committee on home affairs.

The enabling law for rules is being studied by the core group of parliamentarians.

Track 3

Nominations to be made by the president to various interim bodies to be created under the new constitution are being tackled by the president's office.

Track 4

Administrative processes required to introduce new institutions, and manage existing ones which would either be nullified or amended under the new constitution are also being attended to by the president's office.

The ninety day period

The book was adopted on Thursday, 26 June. The book was submitted to the president on Sunday, 29 June. Mistakes were found in the draft and the book was returned for correction on Monday, 30 June. The corrected version was sent to the president on Tuesday, 1 July. Today is Monday, 7 July. The government has not so far consumed a full working week since the draft was passed on to the president for necessary action.

The constitution grants three months to the president to either ratify or return any matter for reconsideration of the assembly. He gets a month to ratify an ordinary legislation.

So far the book has been with the president only for a week. Therefore the question of ignoring the ratification process and speculation over return of the book cannot be more than unfounded apprehensions.

The constitutional responsibility

While it is in the interest of the government to ratify the constitution and move into the new system as quickly as may be possible, it must be read as soon as may be practicable, I think.

As head of state, representing all interests of all nationals, there is a burdensome responsibility on the president to make no mistake in the process.

It is definitely his responsibility to ensure that the period between the end of the current constitution and the beginning of the new constitution is free of chaos and does not cause systems to collapse or entice the country to slide into disorder.

This country for all purposes is a functioning state, and the effort is to undergo a drastic system change, a fundamentally revolutionary transformation, in an instant process of migration, in as smooth and orderly manner as possible. That is the challenge before the president.

Any miscalculation or lapse will be blamed conveniently on the government or the president.

The varying questions

If anything goes wrong the questions would be these: why did he ratify the constitution with all these? Does he not have any responsibility to ensure that the state did not collapse? Could not he have given the matter thought and sent the book back for improvement? Why does the constitution give him the option to send the book back for further consideration if he does not use that power wisely?

Now that he is giving time to be sure that there is continuity of the state, and a smooth transition, in the interim, he is being asked a different set of questions altogether: was not he aware of the magnitude of the change before? Were not his ministers involved in the creation of the constitution? Has it come to him as a surprise? Did not the revision take four years?

The difficult truth

One never runs out of questions: the answer to them is this: there is no issue, seriously speaking, with what we have designed for the country, for its future system of government. The challenge is in superimposing that new system on the current one and to ensure a smooth takeoff minimizing every impact.

Offering critical comments without a balance may be our favorite pastime.

But if one is truthfully conscious of the enormity of what is about to fall on us, if one is honest about having some experience in governing a country, or if one looks at things from a more national perspective, that person will realize the Herculean nature of getting any work done properly in this country, at a time when issues are so divisive, and people are so incisive.

The fictitious Indian parallel

I am not a Bollywood buff but once a friend narrated a scene from a Hindi movie. Kader Khan, known for his popular comedian role played the character of a political editor of a newspaper.

In the movie, a flood occurs in an Indian district and it was speculated that the relevant minister would visit the scene.

Kader Khan immediately issued instructions to one of his staff reporters to do four parallel stories in advance:

If the minister takes a train to visit the flood victims, say that the minister has put a public show, after the event is over, and had wanted to avoid the sight of his people's sufferings.

If he flies to the disaster region, say that the minister has been very insensitive to have frittered away money, while his people were suffering from the infliction of the floods.
If he goes to the disaster area and distributes food, clothes and medicine, say that he was manipulating the occasion to gain political advantage in the forthcoming elections.

If he does not go there at all, say that the minister must be sacked for being irresponsible towards the suffering of his electorate.

The morale of the story is eternally valid as I see parallels that can be drawn to our little country.

If president takes his time to ratify the constitution, it must be said the president is deliberately dragging his feet over an issue that he must have made his mind about ages ago.

If he ratifies it without undertaking a detailed check to look for impracticalities or legal issues, he must be held to account for being careless and substandard should any eventuality occur.

If he ratifies it quickly, he must be accused for being over anxious about elections, while various government departments are screaming about the difficulties they would face if the constitution came into effect.

If he returns the book for reconsideration, it must be said that the man was never serious about ratification or embracing change.

May God bless us and intellectually challenge us.