With the dawn of a New Year and the beginning of a new decade as well, it is time to reflect on the past and look to what the future may offer.

Fortunately for this country, the 'war', as far as most Sri Lankans are concerned, is over; unfortunately the heroes of our time are now at each other's throats in a different theatre of conflict - the Presidential election.

There seems to be general consensus that, notwithstanding the end to terrorism, the Executive Presidency is the root of all evil in this country. It might have been prudent to have a referendum on the matter together with the upcoming Presidential poll, but even otherwise, it is time that the system is reviewed 30 years after it was introduced.

Even the architect of the system, former President J.R. Jayewardene said that it should be given time, and then probably reviewed. He said this after he had left the job and his successor was under siege facing an impeachment motion from his own party men.

Today, we see its proponents and opponents purely supporting or opposing an Executive Presidency for political expediency and nothing else. We have always been of the view that an Executive Prime Minister could turn out to be no less autocratic than an Executive President. Those who could recall the 1970-77 era and the repression of democratic rights and inefficiency in the administration of the country know that the Executive Presidency was built on the foundation of those failures.

The initial years of the Executive Presidency witnessed the economy 'take off' and propel Sri Lanka to the modern world it had left behind, only to be brought down with the 1983 race riots and the separatist insurgency that was to follow.
The current argument by those in office that it was thanks to the Executive Presidency that the fascist LTTE was militarily defeated, has no merit and rings hollow in the face of the fact that the entire 30 years of the insurgency was waged by Executive Presidents.

One of the essential pre-requisites for an efficient Executive Presidency has been the need for a strong Presidential Secretariat, established with wise men and women from outside the political leadership adding gravitas to the administration of the nation at the highest level.

Like in the case of appointments to the National List - the selection of advisers to the President has left much to be desired - and even if some were judiciously picked, Presidents have often found themselves surrounded by a coterie of sycophants, rascals and opportunists who seem to get the better of a politician at the top with all the frailties of a human being.

Having said that, the country is still very much in the dark about the alternative in the Presidential stakes. There is confusion about the future in the event of a change of leadership.

There are signs that those who are proposing an alternative are unsure of what they want - and are not in agreement about what exactly they propose for Sri Lanka. We are told that they are drafting their policy. From all accounts it would still remain a hybrid system of a President with certain Executive powers, and a Cabinet headed by a Prime Minister with certain Executive powers working through Parliament.

One cannot venture to offer an opinion not knowing what's cooking. With less than a month for the crucial vote on the future course of Sri Lanka, these alternatives must be made known for public discussion and debate.

For many Sri Lankans however, there are other issues that are of more fundamental importance to them. We do hope that the initial rounds of mud-slinging and personal vendettas upgraded from sheer entertainment value into public issues are quickly done away with and substantive proposals put forward for the people to make a final choice by the end of this month.
In the US, the presidential election is on a fixed date and presidential debates go on for several months giving the people ample time and information to make an informed choice.

It is unfair by the 14 million voters of this country to be asked now to decide between the known devil or angel and the unknown devil or angel; it is almost asking them to toss a coin and hope for the best.

It is the incumbent's responsibility to present his manifesto first and say why the people must re-elect him. His agents claiming that he has already fulfilled 95% of his 2005 'Mahinda Chintanaya' promises are either no good in their maths or doing him a dis-service because there is a logical question if he needs six more years to implement the balance 5%.
On the other hand, his challenger arguably has a larger burden on his shoulders in convincing the people why they should elect him.

Now that the credit for the defeat of the LTTE will seemingly be shared between the two main candidates, one camp seems to be pinning its hopes on the people's gratitude for winning the war and the other simply rooting for change.

In the final analysis all the debate, if any, may boil down to Gratitude vs. Change. But we have to ask both candidates to raise the level of debate and offer a wider choice of issues to pick from; for one favourite hobby of elected leaders has been to say they received a mandate for this or that - when in fact the voter had little idea of what was coming after the election.