It is a standing joke, even though there’s nothing funny about it, that Sri Lankans in general – by nature – have a collective memory span of two weeks. Two weeks is all it takes for most of us to forget even the most profound events, be they good, bad, or even ugly. It’s this psyche that politicians of all hues have grown accustomed to exploit to the detriment of the country. How else could any rational individual explain the litany of broken promises of politicians over the years who despite that keep bouncing back with more of the same! And the great majority of people who keep buying what is proffered, only to be duped over and over again. It seems that we are a people that finds learning from the past a most challenging pastime. This explains the spectacle that unfolds in the country’s Parliament every few years following an election. It is the most predictable of events where what is bad in opposition becomes good in government and what is good in government becomes bad in opposition. What is incomprehensible is that the followers and supporters of the respective parties play along, deaf and dumb, and the vicious cycle keeps repeating time and again. Ever since 1994, the general call among civil society has been for the abolition of the executive presidency and many of its main political proponents have been the honourable members of Parliament who are today fighting to strengthen it while the party that was keen on retaining their creation now wants it scrapped. It’s been 26 years since this circus began and it has grown into this all-consuming political storm today. It seems the more people forget; the more history keeps repeating itself. Today, with Parliament embroiled in much the same argument that first began in 1994, it looks as if time has stood still in sunny Sri Lanka. It was Chandrika Kumaratunga’s People’s Alliance (PA) that screamed from the rooftops back then that the fountain of all evil in this land was the presidency and dooshanaya and bheeshanaya were its fruits. Many of whom were members of the then PA are today MPs of the ruling party, backing the strengthening of the Executive via the proposed 20th Amendment. Meanwhile, it is now the turn of Sajith Premadasa and his Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya to do what Chandrika Kumaratunga did and cry out that the proposed amendment would lead to the recreation of the fountain of evil with dooshanaya and bheeshanaya being the consequences. They point out that doing away with the National Audit Commission and the National Procurement Commission would pave the way for unbridled corruption, or dooshanaya, while the proposed concentration of executive powers once again in one individual would inevitably lead to bheeshanaya. It’s the same old story in a brand-new avatar with only the actors changing sides. “How long more and what further price will the country have to pay for the games its politicians play” is the trillion-rupee question today. It is being said that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution is reflective of the overwhelming mandate given by the people on 5 August 2020. It has also been pointed out that the same rationale can be attributed to the mandate given by the people on 8 January 2015 which spawned the 19th Amendment. What is mind-boggling is that the implementation of both the 19th, which cut the president’s power, and the 20th, which restores all powers, have been attributed to the will of the people obtained within a period of less than five years. Political analysts point out that the 19th Amendment came about in response to at least two decades of sustained agitation against the presidency. Having struggled for two decades to bring about the 19th, what made the people change their mind in five years, or is it that the 20th is not exactly a reflection of the people’s mandate and has more to do with opportunism, is what analysts are asking these days. The fact that every political party represented in Parliament and civil society organisations united to enact the 19th Amendment where as there is no such unity but rather opposition from many quarters to the 20th points to very different circumstances and very different mandates. A collective of civil society groups taking issue with the proposed amendment and even the Prime Minister himself weighing in on the matter by appointing a special commission of his own to study and report on the proposed changes indicate that the 20th may not be rooted in as popular a mandate as the 19th. Some pundits have pointed out that if elements of the 20th Amendment were made known prior to the last election; the mandate received may well have been different. It is accepted that the 19th Amendment strengthened the democratic institutions, and particularly Parliament itself, which is the repository of the peoples’ will, by taking away chunks of executive presidential power and depositing them in independent institutions controlled by Parliament and civil society through the Constitutional Council. Political analysts point out that despite its many shortcomings, the 19th Amendment brought about positive change in key institutions. For instance, it stopped politicians from lording over the Police and MPs sitting on the OIC’s chair at police stations, directing how the Police should act. It gave teeth to the Election Commission to take charge during an election and punish those who violate the law. It is because of this that election violence became a thing of the past and no election-related deaths have been recorded ever since. It also strengthened parliamentary oversight through the Audit Commission which was vested with wide ranging powers that brought about some semblance of monetary discipline that was lacking in the public sector. It brought about a palpable fear among public sector employees to abide by the law and many could be heard saying that the strict auditing could land them in hot water, should they stray. These are but a few of the many positive aspects of the independent commissions established under the 19th Amendment. To throw away all the good that has been achieved in order to rectify a few imperfections is akin to throwing away the baby along with the bath water. The fact that the President has done an excellent job in handling the Covid-19 crisis so far points to the fact that if there is a will, there is a way. We have no doubt in the President’s will to put things right, given his performance so far, and it would be unfortunate if the groundswell of support he enjoys will be compromised as a result of ill-thought-out legislation which has given the lame duck Opposition a new lease of life and a juicy bone of contention. Therefore, given the pros and cons of both the 19th as well as the proposed 20th Amendment, it is only fair by the people that it is widely discussed among the same groups that championed the 19th for over two decades and an amicable and equitable solution is arrived at, where the best of both are retained until such time a new constitution is introduced. It is imperative that the chief architect of the 19th, former President Maithripala Sirisena, is also consulted on the matter, for he swore before the casket of late Ven. Sobitha Thera that he will not look back until the post is abolished. The 20th Amendment, if it is enacted in its current form, would mean that all the strife, blood, sweat, and tears shed for the abolition of the presidency over the years would all be in vain.