Dr.Vickramabahu Karunaratne

The main concern of the recent democratic uprising in Lanka has been on how to halt the presidential authoritarianism or constitutional dictatorship.

Chair in Office of the Commonwealth President Maithripala Sirisena and Mrs. Jayanthi
Sirisena arrive for the Commonwealth Observance – an inter-denominational service held
at Westminster Abbey in London, England, March 9, 2015

Sri Lanka’s Minister of Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs, Mr. D.M. Swaminathan,
and Provincial Councillor Mr. Azad Sally arrive for the Observance for Commonwealth
Day Service at Westminster Abbey in London, England, March 9, 2015 (facebook.com/maithripalas)

It was NSSP that was first to show the defective character of the presidential system, introduced in 1978, Feb. 4th. We appealed to all democratic forces to participate in a Back flags campaign and it was successful in many parts of the country. I was arrested with Lalith and late Nissanka had to be in remand jail on that day.

Subsequently I was forced to leave the post of Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering for this offence. Now I am happy to participate in a political movement prepared to abolish the presidential authoritarianism; this objective is amply achieved through the proposed 19th Amendment among other matters. In addition, the duration of terms of both the President and the Parliament hereafter will be five years and not six years. This is in itself is considered by experts to be more democratic. However some clamor that the presidential system is not completely abolished, returning to a complete parliamentary system.

However, the proposed system cannot also be called a quasi-presidential as the powers of the president is not that important which could trample on parliament or the rights of the people. There is no separation of powers between the legislature and the president as in the old system. Instead the government is firmly anchored in the popularly elected parliament. Hence the proposed system is clearly a liberal democratic parliamentary set up.

We see that Chapter I of the Constitution on ‘the people, the state and sovereignty’ is amended in respect of the exercise of sovereignty by repealing the existing 4 (b) and substituting the following:

“The executive power of the people, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised, in the manner hereinafter provided, by the President of the Republic elected by the people.” In addition the Article 33 is also completely repealed with the new Article 33 stated bellow:

* The President shall be the symbol of national unity.

(e) On the advice of the Election Commission, ensure the creation of proper conditions for the conduct of free and fair elections and Referenda.

Special place

It is clearly stated that the retention of some functions in the Office of the President is in terms of duties rather than powers. On the other hand it is an important emphasis that in the amended constitution, the President is the ‘Symbol of National Unity.’ Perhaps it is in the above context that the retention of the elected president is justified. Because minorities continuously argued that a president elected by a national vote, with all citizens participating as one electorate, automatically induces the president to stand above communal and religious divisions. As the last election clearly indicated the President could get elected with the support of all sections of the Lankan society, transcending nationality and religion.

As such it is claimed that the present President has a special place in the hearts and minds of the minorities. As it is the only position or institution nationally elected there is some truth in the arguments put forward by the smaller communities. As the proposed new Article says, it is the duty of the President to “ensure and facilitate the preservation of religious and ethnic harmony” and “promote national reconciliation and integration.” Many people have shown satisfaction on this matter as this is something they have been advocating, if any functions to be retained for the President beyond the functions of a ceremonial head of state. They believe that the future of the country would largely depend on reconciliation and harmony between various communities in here.

Also it is clear that the removal of the President or the impeachment is made easier than in the existing constitution and the President is responsible to the Parliament and more importantly to the laws and constitution of the country thus validating the liberal democratic nature of the new constitution proposed.

While we could be happy about the consensus developed around the 19th amendment there is a new controversy about the electoral system that should be introduced. It is true that 19th A could be passed in the parliament without accompanied with a new electoral system. However a section of the SLFP has started a campaign claiming that 19th A could bring instability unless new electoral system is introduced, removing the present system based on proportional representation. Of course we all have been campaigning against the preferential system used presently to nominate the elected d persons from each party. That can be removed easily abandoning the preferential vote and allowing each party to nominate the representation, once the proportion is given after the election. To remove the ill effects of preferential vote there is no need what so ever, to change the present proportional voting system.

Proportional representation

The term proportional representation (PR) characterizes an electoral system by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If 30% of the electorate supports a particular political party, then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. The essence of such a system is that all votes contribute to the result, not just a plurality, or a bare majority, of them.

Proportional representation requires the use of multiple-member districts as we use now, and it will be a collective campaign for the party. Then party will be responsible to nominate the winners according to their internal tradition and that should be fair to all members of that party. Thus the removal of preferential system is very easy and will be acceptable to all types of smaller parties. But the attempt to change the proportional representation will be considered by all smaller parties as an attack on them. Some say it could be done “only over our dead bodies”!

Courtesy: Daily News