Constitutional Developments in Ceylon Since Independence

Abstract

C EYLON STILL REMAINS a monarchy, still allows appeals to the Privy Council, still has regular elections at which it regularly changes its government, and still maintains, almost without modification, the constitution on which independence was granted in i948.1 The question to be asked is not Why has the model failed? but Why, and to what extent, has it succeeded? The authorship and guidance of Sir Ivor Jennings provide part of the answer. His understanding of British and local politics contrasted favourably with that of other constitutional lawyers drafting new constitutions which failed. However, much credit must go to the Ceylonese voters and politicians, without whom the system might have collapsed. Ceylon's people are wedded to parliamentary methods. Ceylon has no revolutionary tradition, no revolutionary parties worthy of the name, a tiny army whose occasional political incursions have been farcical rather than threatening, and, most important, politicians who are neither particularly corrupt nor hostile to democracy. Most of its political leaders have had British legal training.2 The administrators, too, have a long background of experience in working constitutional democracy. The Ceylon Civil Service (the administrative class) was Ceylonized to the extent of 33.3 per cent in i925, 64 per cent in I940, and go per cent by I949. The nature of the present constitutional situation in Ceylon can best be examined against the background of past developments.3 Ceylon has had universal suffrage since i93i. At independence it had a class of established politicians, drawn from the professional classes and landed aristocracy, educated in Britain and deeply committed to parliamentary methods. The dominant families-the Senanayakes, Goonetillekes, Bandaranaikes, Ratwattes, and so on-were well represented in the Legislative and State Councils,