What if we produce a constitution and then it get rejected by a popular referendum?
I am at a loss of the two restriction OLD Fox had left us.
One is 2/3rd majority and also a referendum to make it law.
He instituted this constitution to reign supreme and reject opposition.
He did not envisage there is a dictator in the opposition wing in the name of Mahinda.
One is dead and the other is alive and kicking who knows the taste of it and immune to the common law and indemnity.
So he can use few words in the new constitution and use them to kindle the fire of antagonism.
In numbers it is democracy in reality it is mayhem.
That is why I totally reject the current constitution.
New constitution should be not rigid but stable.
This is the very reason we should reject the post of presidency.
One (President) can make all the bizarre changes with democracy under duress.
Parliament with collective responsibility of the Cabinet is the only solution.
In that Cabinet the PM should be for consensus and without executive power almost similar to a One Man Show.
With the current constitutional restrictions, it is going to an uphill task.
Consensus is the most difficult political adventure for the current and old politicians.
It is true for the average voter, too.
I will list a few words that tilt the balance of opinion.
1. Unitary State
2. Supremacy for Buddhism
3. Cultural Aspirations
4. Racial Aspiration
5. Religious Aspiration (autocracy)
6. Individual Freedom (including becoming anon believer)
8. Medium of education
9. Prominence for science
10. Objectivity to bring racial harmony
11. Subjectivity (subject any number of clauses or conditions perceived above)
12. Collective responsibility.
14. Offense, the list can go on and the constitution will fail the majority and favors the politicians.
Why make a constitution?