Abolishing the Executive Presidency

Over the last three decades in Sri Lanka, at almost every presidential election, the voters have been entertained by the pledge to abolish Executive Presidency by the prominent candidates in the fray. This election too is not different from the past and both Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa – the two leading candidates from the opposition – have vowed to demolish the Executive Presidency once elected to power.

First and foremost, it is ironic that contestants are promising to discard the very powerful position they are vigorously campaigning to secure. Executive Presidency is a central component of the State’s constitution and its removal needs to be approved by a two-third majority in the legislature in addition to being endorsed by a referendum later. Ideally, an assurance to undertake such a substantial constitutional amendment needs to be communicated at a general election as it is the legislature which has the power to amend the supreme law of the country.

The most memorable promise to do away with Executive Presidency was made by Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (CBK) at the 1994 Presidential election. The former JVP MP Nihal Galappaththi, who was a candidate at that poll, abandoned his bid in the middle of the race and urged his supporters to back CBK after the first female president of the island had given him a written undertaking to bring an end to the presidential system prior to 15 July 1995. The same guarantee was made by Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2005 Presidential election, but instead of eliminating, he made the coveted post further dominant via the 18th Amendment, which enabled the master politician to gain full control over the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.

Late President JR was the first politician who publicly declared that the country required a system of administration driven by executive presidency. In 1966, at a meeting of the Ceylon Association for the Advancement of Science, the former President stated it was desirable for the then impoverished nation to embrace Executive Presidency. He opined that a strong executive was needed for a developing country like formerly Ceylon to achieve political stability as well as socio-economic progression.

With the introduction of the landmark 1978 Constitution, the President became head of both State and Government. Subsequently, the voters got the opportunity to directly elect their State leader through a nationwide election. One admirable aspect associated with the product of the 1978 Constitution is the empowerment it grants towards minorities.

People might recall at the 2015 Presidential election, the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, which was widely perceived as hostile towards Tamils and Muslims, was voted out of power and the minority vote played a pivotal role in the electoral verdict. Under the hitherto Westminster-style parliamentary system of governance (prior to 1978), Tamil-speaking communities were severely deprived through legislative and administrative actions. When the nation’s indigenous rulers gained political power in 1948, one of the initial statutory enactments was the Ceylon Citizenship Act, which made Indian Tamils stateless persons. The standardisation policy implemented by Sirimavo Bandarnaike’s administration in 1971, curtailed opportunities for talented Tamil students to pursue higher education, which resulted in the Tamil youth joining the armed separatist movements in the North.

The prevailing presidential system also enabled various Governments to restore law and order in the country when anti-State elements tried to destabilise the island. The powerful leadership at the centre was capable of repelling the JVP insurgency in 1989 while the 26-year-old rebellion by the LTTE was defeated based on the political stability fuelled by JR’s lasting legacy.

For the most part of the post-independence, the polity has been governed by Executive Presidency; hence, any attempt to rescind it should be done after a thorough and extensive evaluation.