Editorial

As the whole country knows, the debate on whether the Executive Presidency must remain or if the system of governance in this country must revert to the former Parliamentary system, has been endless. And this debate has gone nowhere; just round and round in circles.

The subject once again popped up—with a presidential election negotiating the bend and everyone clamouring for one, not a change to the presidential system.

Once condemned as the worst thing that could happen to the country, today even the detractors of yesteryear are silent because they have a sniff at victory at the forthcoming presidential election. The howl instead, is not to postpone the elections.

These are opportunistic parties no different to the parties that, having opposed the introduction of Provincial Councils going to the extent of burning buses and killing people, then came to enjoy the benefits of these very councils by way of salaries and other perks of office for their elected councillors. They are now calling for elections to these councils all the time, not their abolition.

The main Opposition has commented this week saying that they are for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, but only after the presidential race where they are confident of crossing the tape first. Unfortunately the masses have heard that mantra so often from Presidents who have come to office pledging to abolish the presidential system, and gone—doing nothing about it. The electorate will be excused, therefore, if they view such pre-poll promises with total cynicism.

While the crux of the criticism is that the office of Executive President revolves around a single individual and that it concentrates too much power in that individual, the contra argument has been that prime ministerial dictatorships under a parliamentary system are no different especially when the Prime Minister has an overwhelming majority in Parliament and when he or she doesn’t have that majority, governments break down like public transport.

Cohabitation governments where the President is from one party and the Prime Minister from another have twice proved disastrous. The one clear instance when the Executive Presidency came to the rescue of the nation was just two years ago when a sitting Executive President was ousted from office by an extra-constitutional ‘People’s Power’ revolt. The country was on the brink of anarchy with Parliament itself at sixes and sevens and MPs scrambling to save their houses and many—their very lives. What prevails today, however, is proof that cohabitation governments can work. The ongoing debate on the Executive Presidency is turning out to be an academic exercise with the system a fait accompli by now. The economy, corruption, taxes, the cost of living – and elections, come what may, are on top of the people’s list of priorities.

Nobody yet has advocated the Chinese one-party model. Its proponents argue that it avoids divisions and provides stability but there is no separation of powers nor an Opposition in this system.

It has come to that state where, as we have almost always said, by quoting the English satirist Alexander Pope whenever the debate on the Executive Presidency crops up, ‘For forms of government let fools contest; that which is best administered is best’.

Ignoring presidential directives

A controversial statement this week by the Tourism Minister while in India has come in for criticism. Contradicted by his Cabinet colleague, the Aviation Minister, it focuses on the need not only for the Government to speak with one voice but also to change this habit of ministers acting on their own volition to promote their departments—and in these pre-election times, even their electorates with foreign entities without any self-respect.

Several Sri Lankan ambassadors abroad have complained of ministers, governors (like the former and present Eastern Province governors) and even officials like ministry secretaries making direct requests from foreign governments or asking the missions for assistance and those governments seeking clarification if such requests are official, and if so, what priority is to be given to them from other requests.

Not long ago, there was a minister who wrote directly to the King of Saudi Arabia and Prime Minister of Pakistan highlighting the plight of one community and seeking financial help for housing and other projects. The then government looked the other way hoping it would benefit from votes at the next election.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the principal institute for the conduct of foreign relations for any country is the Foreign Ministry. Today ministers, officials and even political parties deal directly with foreign governments and entities sans any consultation with the Foreign Ministry.

That is not the case in advanced democracies. Whenever US bipartisan Congressional delegations go abroad, they get briefed by the State Department. In India, even officials are expected to fill a form by their External Affairs Ministry where they have to state the purpose of their foreign visit; if it’s an invitation who is inviting them—and why their embassy in the country they are visiting cannot handle what they are going for. An Indian embassy officer is often required to be present at their meetings abroad. These requirements are meticulously adhered to.

It is a free-for-all here. Though there are detailed instructions from the Presidential Secretariat and parallel guidelines on seeking foreign assistance, they are ignored. These instructions apply even to written communications and MoUs with foreign parties but are practised in the breach. Recent tender contracts from pharmaceuticals to fertiliser imports have been riddled with corruption bypassing these instructions.

The Tourism Minister clearly violated the instructions from the President’s Office not to make media statements “of whatever nature” concerning foreign relations without clearance from the Foreign Ministry. These instructions say this is to avoid unwarranted bilateral developments evolving and to streamline a consistent approach towards Sri Lanka’s foreign policy. His loose cannon faux pas that Sri Lanka is part of India and that Sri Lankan airports have been taken over by Indian companies is exactly what the presidential directive seeks to avoid.

Unless the Government cracks down on even more dangerous violations of its own directive by its own members, the damage to the country can be worse than what exists.