28th November 1999Clinging on to a dictatorial presidencySound doesn’t kill the enemy |
News/Comment| Plus| Business| Sports| Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Clinging on to a dictatorial presidencyIf there is any country in the world where a dictatorial ruler is elected by popular vote, it must be Sri Lanka. J.R. Jayewardene introduced this system by doing away with all the sensible features of the American and French system and taking only the diabolical features. Thereafter he said the only thing he could not do was turn a woman into a man or a man into a woman.Under this extraordinary system, the President is the Chief Executive of the state and is the Commander-in-Chief of the three armed forces. He/she is the head of the Cabinet which is appointed by him/her and has the right to hold any number of ministries. He/she does not sit in Parliament but can address the Parliament. The President cannot be criticised in Parliament except in a resolution to impeach him/her which is tabled with the signatures of two-thirds of its members. He/she cannot be prosecuted in a court of law even when he/she has committed a serious offence or crime. When Chandrika Kumaratunga became president she solemnly promised she would abolish this dictatorial presidential system introduced by J.R. Jayewardene. She did not say at that time that she would need the support of two-thirds of the members of Parliament to abolish that system. What she said was she would convert the Parliament into a constituent assembly and abolish the presidential system. At the presidential election held after the parliamentary election, too, she not only gave an assurance to the country to that effect, but also gave a promise in writing to the JVP that the presidential system would be abolished before July 15, 1995. Although she scored a massive victory at the presidential election, she did not even fulfil her promise to do away with the president's immunity, to say nothing about abolishing the presidential system. After enjoying the privileges of a dictatorial presidential system for five years, she now says it was not possible to abolish the presidential system because she did not have the backing of a two-thirds of Parliament, but that she would do it definitely this time when she is re-elected. There is a debate about the presidential system too. Some leaders of the minorities say the presidential system suits the country better than a parliamentary system, and that the presidential system gives the minorities the opportunity to influence the process of selecting the head of state. If indeed the presidential system is the best system available, it has to be a democratic presidential system and not a dictatorial one. If an executive presidential form of government, rather than a parliamentary form of government centered in Parliament, serves the interests of the country better, then this executive presidential system must be reformed at least to the extent of abolishing the dictatorial powers of the President under that system. At least the presidential immunity must be abolished as demanded by the leader of the SLMC. Mr. Ashraff's demand was that laws and regulations abolishing presidential immunity be brought before Parliament and passed prior to the presidential election. The UNP too had agreed to support such a move. However the President did not agree to the request of her Cabinet colleagues. If Sri Lanka is going to step into the new millennium saddled with a dictatorial system of government, then the country would not be entering into a modernist future but going back to a feudalistic past. This would mean the people would be like vassals of a dictatorial President in a set up akin to a monarchy. Although the leader of the UNP speaks about a modernisation process, he too is silent about the reforms that would be effected in this system of dictatorial presidency. He has said if he wins, he would create an independent Election Commission and an Independent Public Service Commission and that he would abolish the criminal defamation law and enact laws that would guarantee media freedom before this Parliament is dissolved. All that is good. But why does he not, at least give an assurance that the President's immunity would be removed before the Parliament is dissolved? There cannot be any system of independent commissions under a dictatorial political system. Nor can there be free and fair election or true freedom of the press. The most important question is not whether the presidential system of government or the parliamentary form of government is best, but whether the head of state, under any form of government, should be given the power to function as a dictator. In this sense, a guarantee that presidential immunity would be given up is more important than promises of other great things before dissolution of Parliament. Sound doesn’t kill the enemy
In the early days of the Vietnam War the United States used many territorial
soldiers (volunteers) in the battlefields. Though these young men were
well intentioned, the results were disastrous entirely due to the fact
that they were inadequately trained.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]()
Front Page| News/Comment| Editorial/Opinion| Plus| Business| Sports| Sports Plus| Mirror Magazine Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to |
![]() |