Editorial

The President’s address at the opening of the 10th Parliament was wide-ranging and well-meaning, if naturally an aspirational roadmap of his fledgling Government. Even though his near hour-long speech might have gone on for longer, there were two important issues he missed out on; (i) the future of the Executive Presidency, and (ii) his Government’s foreign policy direction.

These cannot be unimportant issues, because the ruling JVP/NPP election manifesto refers to them. On the first, i.e. the Executive Presidency, there was no mention in his speech, at all. Yet, the ruling alliance’s General Secretary has more than once said the country had witnessed the last of presidential elections. The President opted for ‘no comment’.

The JVP/NPP manifesto—in English, talks of the abolition of the Executive Presidency and (an Indian-style) non-Executive President appointed by Parliament. However, there is a discrepancy with the Sinhala version. There’s no reference there to a President being appointed by Parliament. It is silent on who appoints the non-Executive President. Whether this is through an entirely new Constitution (and a Referendum) or by an amendment is not clear, but with their two-thirds majority, while it is best to get unanimity in the Legislature, the Government need not wait to bring in an entirely new Constitution—if it so wishes.

The country knows of the wannabe Presidents of yesteryear who made similar promises only to conveniently ignore their own pledges to the people once ensconced in office. Some even changed the Constitution to go for a third term, while another tried to gain another year in the seat only to be told by the Supreme Court that she was out of order.

The Executive Presidency was not an election issue at the recent elections. Corruption and economic mismanagement took precedence. Yet, it was an issue that was worth a mention, and a promise, in the manifesto. Moreover, there was no one who campaigned saying it should be continued.

Political parties have a way of seeing things differently when in Opposition, and when in Government. Take the Provincial Councils if not the Executive Presidency. Parties that got on to the streets in protests at their introduction, got accustomed to the system, and in fact enjoyed their benefits later.

There have been proponents of the Executive Presidency even from those not enjoying its power and perks. Their argument is basically what its architect, former President J.R. Jayewardene ar-gued; that it provides stability to governance by not having to be dictated by the whims and vagaries of parliamentary majorities.

That, however, is not written in stone given that cohabitation governments have made Executive Presidents lame-ducks without parliamentary majorities, and an impeachment attempt on the President once by Parliament, almost succeeded. An ‘Aragalaya’ was also able to demonstrate that an Executive President was not all powerful, and could be ousted from office by extra-parliamentary methods.

An Executive Presidency seems a lonely place; the incumbent isolated in an ivory tower, insulated from everyday life; losing touch with even his or her own MPs, often surrounded only by a small coterie on whom he or she depends.

If his ominous silence on the subject during his parliamentary address is anything to go by, one can only speculate what is on the President’s mind, and if he is undecided on the subject as he gets comfortable in the seat he occupies.

Foreign Affairs

Another  visible omission from the President’s address was reference to the Government’s operational space to achieve its stated domestic objectives and priorities through the diplomatic front. These are inextricably linked to a vast globalised world where geopolitical and geoeconomic templates are shifting with Sri Lanka caught in those strategic currents.

No country, not even Sri Lanka, is an island it seems. Sovereignty is becoming increasingly porous.

The President referred to economic stabilisation and growth (our national budget is subject to review by the IMF), debt restructuring (enter Paris Club, OCC, private creditors) and anticipated gains from our strategic maritime location (enter Indo-Pacific and balancing between India and China). The Chinese envoy’s homily this week asking Sri Lanka to maintain “an independent foreign policy” indicates this country is sailing in rough seas on the external front.

As observed in this space just last week, even our domestic processes on rule of law, accountability, and human rights (given high priority in the policy statement) need to be endorsed through diplomatic channels in Geneva.

In his address, the President made only a passing institutional reference on how he plans to deal with the external world when he only talked of Sri Lanka’s missions overseas being made up-graded trade offices to help local exporters find markets abroad. But this does not amount to how a country—Sri Lanka—intends to achieve its national interests and objectives in interactions with the rapidly evolving multipolar, or according to evolving jargon, technopolar world. Take for instance, Sri Lanka’s recent move to join BRICS, a collective of the Global South. This indicates its desire to expand its external outreach to new partnerships. However, as a membership aspirant, Sri Lanka needs to demonstrate in the conduct of its foreign affairs its own value addition to the BRICS outlook.

The JVP/NPP manifesto refers to the need for Sri Lanka to ‘regain its status’ as an “international consensus builder”. In this context, not playing any visible role in last week’s COP 29—the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Azerbaijan—was a bad miss. The need for realistic climate financing for developing countries was at the heart of COP-29 (the ‘Financing COP’). Climate change is one of the key issues on which the Global South is rightly challenging the developed world, and Sri Lanka is missing out on the diplomatic opening for consensus building.

The UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka wrote to this newspaper last week urging Sri Lanka to be an “active participant” in the global climate discussion and to invest on climate diplomacy while crafting a strong presence in international forums, as it would enable Sri Lanka to position itself as a leader in the global climate agenda and secure the resources necessary to advance its goals.

This week’s floods in parts of the country were a grim reminder that the climate can play havoc in the ordinary lives of ordinary people, and the national economy.

These and other missing lines, domestic and external, in the President’s speech need to be carefully filled in. Another opportunity will arise when the policy statement is debated next week.