The country is in the midst of deciding whether to revert to the executive Prime Ministerial system or to retain Presidential rule.
The Presidential form of government is certainly superior, as it allows quick decisions to be taken to suit changing circumstances. But it is an expensive form of government. It is an unnecessary luxury, if the Prime Minister can be equally effective.
In Sri Lanka, the Executive Presidency has become a controversial issue because of the excessive powers attached to it. Moreover, the President’s actions may not reflect the desires of the people. The President does not have to go before Parliament with most decisions. The President can even ignore existing legislation. A case in point is the non-activation of the independent Constitutional Council, as required by the 17th Amendment.
The efficacy and efficiency of the public service, especially the Police Department and the judiciary, have been seriously compromised by politicisation. As long as public service and judicial recruitments and promotions are not made on merit, there will be no socio-political and economic stability.
The Prime Ministerial form of government is less effective, especially if the ruling party does not have a comfortable majority in Parliament.
Senior citizens will recall the messy situation that prevailed in France before De Gaulle introduced a Presidential form of government. General elections were held so frequently that the country could barely move forward. Every time the ruling party tried to introduce controversial legislation, it was defeated in Parliament.
In Sri Lanka, the electoral system has the same tendency for Parliamentary elections to deliver a hung Parliament. The advantage of the Prime Ministerial system is that it reflects the will of the people.
On weighing the two systems, Presidential rule appears to be the better system for a country that needs to move forward speedily and catch up with countries such as Malaysia and Thailand. What is needed is a reduction in the excessive powers attached to the Presidency, so the President is answerable to Parliament, as is the case in the United States.
Besides these changes, the principle of the separation of powers of the legislative, executive and judiciary should prevail.
As for the executive Prime Ministerial system, it is debatable whether it can move the country forward as fast as the Presidential system, even if the elections system is changed along with the other amendments to the Constitution suggested above.
Lloyd F. Yapa |
E-mail