I think a chaotic democracy can make it difficult for courts to operate smoothly.

In democratic countries, when parliaments change, laws often change as different parties debate and disagree with each other's policies.

That leads to shifting laws.

This creates challenges for "grandfathered" local companies as well.

Contract law applies under different company laws or acts enacted at different times.

So different rules can apply to cases in different years or even months of a same year.

That can create practical complications for legal disputes.

Examples may include companies like George Steuart, which was acquired Dilith Jayaweera, or Hayleys by Dhammika, or JKH perhaps by Sohli.

Those, and companies like Edna, are older firms.

Edna dates back to 1952.

So different laws may govern contract cases arising from different eras, which complicates legal proceedings.

I view this as a significant issue in democratic systems.

It reflects shifting public preferences and policy changes, which can make it harder for judges and lawyers to reach stable conclusions.

Conflicts between binding precedents can also arise.

For example, one person might cite "fair use" and ███████████████████ like Top Gun: Maverick on YouTube for a "critical review".

They might be found to be within fair use.

Another person might use a single screenshot to create an edited cartoon and be treated differently under the same law.

This is an illustrative example, but such inconsistencies can occur when laws change frequently.

During the protests against ████, I ███████████████████████████ to address what I saw as a threat.

I ███████████████████████████.

Why?

Because I believed it would encourage people to accept the outcome of the election; they had voted for policies such as the chemical fertilizer ban that Gota had suggested.

I felt the public had requested those policies and should therefore accept responsibility for the consequences.

I found that outcome notable.

When I considered taking office, I thought about ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ — such as ██████████████████████████████████████, ██████████████████, and similar channels of review — with the aim of reducing public opposition.

I believed this would ██████████████████████████.

My thinking was that by keeping laws more static and ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████, there would be less formal opposition, insincere complaint or legal challenge.

I saw this as a path to rapid development and increased assets under SLWF, benefiting SLFT members.

I viewed that as the strategy available to us.