Should Executive Presidency Be Dismantled

Since the introduction of executive presidential system to Sri Lanka’s political administration, has been a question whether the executive presidential status for the head of state in Sri Lanka should be eliminated transferring the executive authority to the parliament or elected representatives of people in national state assembly.

This was a complex dogma that could not be resolved, but from time to time this issue emerges without a firm decision to abolish or to continue from either opposition or the government.
Before elected to executive presidency, Mrs Chandrika Kumaranatunga and Mr Mahinda Rajapakse had ideas to abolish it, nevertheless their behaviour as an executive president implied that they wanted to continue it.

Prior to exordium the executive presidential status in Sri Lanka’s constitution, there was a non executive president, though the status was appeared as the head of state, it was a rubber stamp of the prime minister, who was the real authority of the government under the constitution approved by the National State Assembly in 1972. The operational pattern of the presidency under the constitution of 1972 clearly betoken that it was an equal or less significant position in Sri Lanka’s political administration that the position was quite similar to Governor General of Ivor Jennings’ constitution.

The creation of presidency in 1972 constitution could be viewed as an attempt of nepotism rather than creation of a position for the political administration of Sri Lanka with a view to contributing an active symbol for decision making process or creating a head of state, which is accountable to general public.

Mr JR Jayawardane, who was a visionary leader of Sri Lanka attempted rethink about the head of state position as he wanted to be the head of state with a real power that directly originated from peoples’ consent to do the right thing for the country. Before created the position, Mr Jayawarndane consulted many academics, experts as well as members of the parliament and wanted to establish a position that is a high breed product mixing the spirits of traditional Sinhala Kingdom, British democracy, American republicanism and French DeGaulism.

Therefore, the current executive presidency in Sri Lanka is not a mere product of nepotism or a symbolic head of state, but it is a product that generated through widely consultation and a result oriented and an effective symbol for the country, which motivates citizens for unique objectives and achievements. Some political parties undermine the position purely due to misguided objectives of such parties were destroyed by the executive presidency and related election system, but not any other meaningful points that they can present against the executive presidency.

Why did Sri Lanka want an executive presidency rather than depending on the power of Prime Minister, who was accountable directly to the parliament?

This is a thoughtful question that many people, who against the executive presidency would not think about and attempt to blindly endorse the dismantling the executive presidency.

The political history of Sri Lanka between 1948 – 1977 evidence that it has been seriously faced a political instability, which was a grave constraint for decisions making in relation to political, economic, ethnical, religious and cultural issues. Compared to India, Sri Lanka was unable to establish a constitution that will bring stability to the country as soon as it gained independence. India established owned constitution that could achieve the unity and racial, ethnic and social stability could possible to maintain at acceptable level through the environment created through the new constitution.

When SWRD Bandaranaike was in power, emergency situation in 1958 created anarchic situation in certain areas of the country and Mr Bandaranaike was unable to control that situation as the leader of the parliament and the nominal head of state, Mr Oliver Gunatilake, the Governor General had acted on behalf of Prime Minister using the power to control violent situation.

It was a clear example that cantering power to the head of state would be significant to the political environment of Sri Lanka, where was desperate for political stability and Mr Jayawardane found a solution for this serious problem establishing the executive presidency that obtains directly power from the people. After the 1958 emergency situation, there many incidents in Sri Lanka, that were supposed to overthrow the government by mean of violence and the incident of 1971 clearly proved that the head of state requires executive power unless vulnerable situation in the country has a high probability to create chaos rather than achieving any drift progress in the country.

Although the executive presidency is not a product of Rajapakse government, many cabinet members of Rajapakse government have praised Mr Jayawardane’s invention, as it helped to destroy the terrorism in the country. Therefore, it is required to rethink on the abolition of executive presidency not just looking at its possible vicious effects, but the advantages, which will be benefited to country in relation to achieving economic and social progress.

Legally to abolish the executive presidency, it is required to obtain consent from the people of the country because the executive president is elected by people and neither it is an act of parliament nor the appointment of prime minister. The most probably, the parliament of Sri Lanka needs to seek consent of people through a referendum, which will give opportunity to each voters in Sri Lanka to determine whether the executive presidency should be abolished or not.

Generally the executive presidency is the highest respect and proud to the country. The power of executive president of Sri Lanka is no way imperior to American, French or German presidents and he or she is a real representative and the leader of the country.

Edward Theophilus Wanigasekera –Head Of Tvet, The University Of Goroka

- Asian Tribune -