A wish: Let this be the last Presidential election

There is much at stake in the upcoming Presidential election. The country’s trajectory will depend on the individual who will emerge victorious. As witnessed in the last Presidential election which saw 6.9 million people elect an alleged war criminal and murderer, the stakes can be very high when so much executive and political power is vested with one individual, with little democratic space for course correction ‘post facto’.

This need not be the case. In parliamentary systems, governments and leaders can be changed frequently with considerable stability through democratic institutions. In contrast, the Sri Lankan presidency has been bestowed with almost God-like power and anointed the office bearer as the principal political power centre in the country. By constitutional design executive presidents are immovable once elected to office. What was meant to bring stability, and avoid the quick changes in the Government as witnessed before 1978, the Executive Presidency has delivered the opposite.

The risks associated with concentrating excessive power with one institution, and by extension one individual have been well-known. Colvin R. de Silva, the drafter of the first republican constitution of 1972, at the time of enacting the second republican constitution in 1978 observed, “An incumbent President will in practice be irremovable. The procedure provided for the removal of a President by Parliament is so cumbrous and prolix that one cannot see it ever being resorted to in respect of intentional violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the powers of his office or any offence under any written law, involving moral turpitude. Even in the case of the President being permanently incapable of performing the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity, the same procedure has to be resorted to; so that we can be ruled by a mad President for quite a time.”

This prediction of being ruled by a madman came to glaring fruition when the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration and a handful of officials made one mistake after the other and dragged the whole country down to the abyss in merely two years of office. There were hardly any checks and balances and the possibility of course correction. Parliament’s oversight of the republic’s finances was diluted, and the independence of vital commissions was undermined. The destiny of the whole country was entrusted to an individual who was incompetent to the task. He is no exception, since 1978 the fortunes of the nation have swung dramatically depending on the one individual holding the highest office, often in directions that were detrimental to the country.

An argument against the abolition of the Executive Presidency is that the presidency leads to stability. Proponents of the presidency say that in view of the political and economic challenges faced by a developing country such as Sri Lanka, a strong government freed from the whims and fancies of the legislators, and which can take tough, unpopular decisions that are in the long-term interest of the country is needed. Yet the experiences of the past decades have proven that unrestricted power and authority is dangerous but also inefficient and unsustainable for Sri Lanka. The fortunes of the whole nation should not be entrusted with the judgement, acumen and competency of a single individual.

Electorates can make mistakes and leaders can change once in office. These human factors must be factored in when deciding on the governance of a country. The future of Sri Lanka is too important to be determined by a single individual. It is long past the time that the Executive Presidency is abolished for good.