The abolishing antics again

The abolishment of the executive presidency is once again a hot topic of discussion. It is widely reported that President Ranil Wickremesinghe has tasked a group of lawyers with looking into abolishing the executive presidency. It is unclear of the modalities and timeframe for this proposal.

This is not the first time this stale fish was sold to the Sri Lankan electorate. President Chandrika Kumaratunga came into office in 1994 with a promise of abolishing the executive presidency within six months. In 2005 President Mahinda Rajapaksa signed an electoral pact with the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna with the explicit promise of abolition. In 2015, one of the cornerstones of the phenomenal political change was based on the same promise. None of these attempts succeeded because those who promised the abolition changed their minds after ascending to the highest office. The all-powerful executive seems to have the power of temptation over all mortal beings who sat on that seat.

Yet the most plausible moment of change came amidst the chaos of 2022. In May that year with the resignation of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the cabinet with the country in complete turmoil the leaders of the opposition parties presented an ultimatum to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Neither of the opposition party leaders were to accept the offer of premiership and Gotabaya Rajapaksa was to be given a respectable exit if he agreed to abolish the presidency.

This once in a lifetime opportunity to change the dreaded executive presidency was thwarted by the actions of one man. Ranil Wickremesinghe who had a single seat in Parliament, betrayed the understanding reach among opposition political party leaders and accepted the premiership from Rajapaksa. The crisis of governance averted; Rajapaksa hung onto power for two more months before he was forced to flee the country allowing the recently ‘appointed’ prime minister to ascend to the presidency.

For two years there has not been any discussion on the abolition of the presidency. If such a genuine desire was in place it would have easily obtained the two thirds majority required in Parliament. Whether the Supreme Court would have deemed that a referendum is necessary is a moot point since the highest court has not been consistent in determining the necessity for referendums during the numerous constitutional changes, particularly since 2010.

An argument against the abolition was that it 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. The case of Gotabaya Rajapaksa stands as testament to the facility of this assertion. Despite having overwhelming powers bestowed to him through the 20th Amendment (20A) and enjoying a two-thirds majority in Parliament, he and the institution of the executive presidency failed abysmally and dragged Sri Lanka to its lowest depths.

It has been abundantly clear for at least three decades that the executive presidency, which bestows enormous powers on a single individual must be done away. However, this promise should not once again be used as a political machination to hoodwink the electorate. Having singlehandedly squandered and betrayed the best moment to abolish the presidency in 2022 the grand pronouncements and promises of the President should be considered with caution and scepticism.