Columns

Volumes have been written and numerous arguments have been put forward ad nauseum about the need to abolish the office of the Executive Presidency.

Both the concept of the Executive Presidency which by definition promotes authoritarianism and lack of accountability as well as the country’s experience of the past four decades under this form of Government should be sufficient to clinch the argument that the country’s progress is dependent on the immediate or early abolishing of the Executive Presidency.

If there were any doubts about this the Gotabaya Rajapaksae and Ranil Wickremesinghe Presidencies should suffice to clinch the argument that the Executive Presidency should be abolished forthwith.  

Under Gotabaya Rajapaksa there was a total breakdown in governance in the country. Notwithstanding the centralisation of power in the office of the Executive Presidency (after the 20th Amendment ) and the Government’s two third majority in Parliament, there was a sense of chaos in the country in relation to the delivery of basic services expected of Government.

A careful study of the colossal mistakes that the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency made during its two years in office which resulted in the country being driven to bankruptcy will reveal that such errors in governance were primarily rooted in the nature of the Executive Presidency which did not allow for collective decision making.

President Rajapaksa preferred to govern with the use of several task forces as well as ad hoc advisors sidelining the Cabinet of Ministers.

While the servile nature of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) ministers prevented them from questioning the many faulty decisions made by President Rajapaksa, there were muted grumblings by leaders of the constituent parties of the Government that they were not consulted before critical decisions were made.

This attitude of servility of the SLPP ministers has now been transferred to the present Cabinet where President Ranil Wickremesinghe calls the shots.

The office of the Executive Presidency is premised in the belief that wisdom in governance is the exclusive preserve of an individual rather than in the collective wisdom of a team of individuals. It is a system that places an individual’s capacity over the efficacy of well thought out policies after a proper decision making process.

This lack of self esteem among the supporters of President Ranil Wickremesinghe and his Cabinet is reflected in the cry that Ranil Wickremesinghe, and Ranil Wickremesinghe alone, has the answer to the country’s problems.

This lack of self belief among the Ranil Wicremesinghe wing of the SLPP is also one of the direct results of the mind set created by the Executive Presidency of the 1978 Constitution.

Contrast this with the situation in the Cabinet of the United Front Government of 1970 in which Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike gave leadership but others like Maitripala Senanayake, T. B. Ilangaratne, Dr. N. M. Perera, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva and Pieter Keuneman had their say.

Even in the J.R. Jayewardene Cabinet which were the early days of the Executive Presidency, Ranasinghe Premadasa, Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake among others did not hesitate to make their views known and contribute to informed decision making.

When the 1972 Republican Constitution was being drafted, the then UNP Leader J. R. Jayewardene suggested to Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike that an Executive Presidency be created as part of the Constitutional architecture.

Despite the fact that Mrs. Bandaranaike would have been the first ‘beneficiary’ of wielding such enormous powers she immediately turned it down on the grounds that “it was not suited for a country like Sri Lanka.”

The two heavyweights of the then powerful Lanka Sama Samaja Party Dr. N. M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R de Silva who were both Ministers in the Sirimavo Bandaranaike Government strongly opposed the proposal. One of the key reasons why they opposed the Executive Presidency was that they saw it as a threat to democracy and a concentration of power in the hands of a single individual.

However after J. R. Jayewardene took over the reigns of Government in 1977 the Executive Presidency was introduced in Sri Lanka by his government. It gave the President significant powers to make important decisions without adequate checks and balances.

Dr. N. M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R de Silva argued that the Executive Presidency was a departure from the traditional Westminster-style parliamentary system that had been in place in Sri Lanka since independence. They believed that the concentration of power in the hands of the president would lead to authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic values and institutions.

Furthermore, they also argued that the Executive Presidency would lead to a more centralized and less participatory form of government. They believed that decision-making would be dominated by a small group of individuals close to the President, rather than being representative of the wider population.

All that these farsighted leaders predicted have unfortunately come true although at great cost to the country.

The list of arguments in support of abolishing the Executive Presidency are endless and have been spoken and written about. But it is necessary to highlight an important reason that is fresh in the minds of the people and is reflected in the happenings around the aragalaya of 2022.

When the country had lost confidence in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa there was no provision in the Constitution to remove him from office in an orderly manner. The only provisions in the Constitution that provided for removal of a President was the impeachment process which would probably take a couple of years.

But even such a process did not provide the loss of confidence of the people as a ground for impeachment. Whereas under the Westminster system of Parliamentary Government a vote of no confidence that is adopted by the Legislature would result in the removal of the incumbent government and an orderly transition of power to a new government.

Thus under the present Constitutional provisions the prospect of future Aragalayas cannot be ruled out.

To sum up it is absolutely necessary that the process of abolishing the Executive Presidency be commenced without delay. Such a step need not await a full overhaul of the Constitution through comprehensive reform. A simple amendment to abolish the office of the Presidency together with consequential provisions will suffice for the moment.

A long drawn out process of Constitutional reform will be a recipe for disaster and may well result in the political will for change drying up. (javidyusuf@gmail)