By
Lucien Rajakarunanayake
The Cabinet approval to go ahead to abolish the Executive Presidency and change the electoral system, is a welcome move to the core of the policies approved by the people in the mandate given to President Maithripala Sirisena in the Presidential Poll of January 8 this year. This should help revive the public discussion and debate that was alive from March 2014, and came into sharper focus with the attempt by Mahinda Rajapaksa to seek a third term in office, as he completed his 69th birthday last year.
With this Cabinet decision we move towards realization of a major policy of governance that had been promised, but not implemented by two Executive Presidents – Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the implementing of a policy that the UNP had called for since 2001, but did not have the parliamentary strength to proceed with.
The record on this promise to abolish the Executive Presidency is most interesting. In October 1994, the JVP obtained a pledge from the SLFP presidential candidate Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, to implement this, and consequently withdrew their presidential candidate in the election that followed. Although CBK won that election with a huge personal majority and the next presidential poll too, the pledge was not carried out. While she lacked a parliamentary majority for the purpose, there was also no political campaigning to achieve this goal.
In the December 2001 Parliamentary Election, the UNF led by Ranil Wickremesinghe promised a change in the Executive Presidency, but the victory of the UNP too was with a majority that did not make this possible, and there was also no political push to go ahead towards this goal.
The “Chinthanaya” run
In the Presidential Poll of December 2005, Mahinda Rajapaksa of the SLFP, who led a large coalition, made the abolition of the Executive Presidency a key part of the fist “Mahinda Chinthanaya” policy declaration. The strong support that MR obtained from the JVP in this election was largely due to this aspect of his policy. He won the presidency very narrowly, and the abolition of the Executive Presidency was put to the back burner.
This pledge was repeated by MR in the Presidential Poll in 2010, being very much part of the “Mahinda Chinthanaya – Forward Vision” that was his manifesto for the poll. He won again, with a large majority for the presidency. In the General Election that followed soon after, he obtained large majority, but few seats short of the two-thirds required to change the Constitution.
It did not take long for him to obtain the required two-thirds majority with crossovers from the Opposition to the Government, but gave no thought to carry out the abolition or reduction of the powers of the Executive Presidency.
What MR did instead was to use this two-thirds plus majority to increase the powers of the Executive Presidency.
He brought in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which removed the Independent Commissions that had been introduced by CBK, with a major push from the JVP, which obtained almost a 100 per cent vote in Parliament.
What is worse, MR also brought in the dangerous provision of removing the two-term limit for the Executive President, and gave a future holder of this office unlimited terms, which violated the very core values of the democratic process, and showed Rajapaksa’s clear plan for a family reign ahead.
This made the Executive Presidency much worse than what was introduced by JR Jayewardene in 1978. While being called for removal even by his own party, and the UNP, it instead paved the way to the huge levels of corruption, nepotism and family bandyism that was the very image and symbol of government under MR.
This, in turn saw the emergence of the very wide call for its abolition, with the political and civil society campaign to which the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera gave untiring and deserving leadership.
What the government will now have to do is go beyond the 19th Amendment passed in as part of the 100 day policy of the “yahapalanaya government”, elected on January 8 this year, and bring in comprehensive changes to restore the country to a genuine parliamentary democracy, with power in the Cabinet of Ministers under the Prime Minister, under the control of a freely and fairly elected parliament.
Although there was cause for cheer at the passage of the 19 A, it is admitted that what it did was far from what was expected from the abolition of the Executive Presidency. It did restore the term limits of an Executive President to two terms, and also reduced the single term period to five from six years.
However, the majority that was welded in Parliament by the UPFA at the time, saw that the 19 A was far from the goals that were sought in the mandate of the people on January 8, which is still considered a Silent Revolution.
There are major questions about the majority of active politicians, including Cabinet Ministers, in the Constitutional Council, which appoints the “Independent Commissions” for many important areas of governance, and the limiting of civil society representatives on the CC to only three.
One must recall the ugly record of the parliamentary sessions during that time, when those who had lost the leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa were trying all possible tactics of delay and obstruction to prevent good debate and passage of the best amendments to the Constitution, even in the limited areas that were possible under law, and without a national referendum. Those episodes of shameful parliamentary behaviour, will remain the worst slur on the history of the Sri Lankan Parliament.
The struggle ahead
What lies ahead is clearly a period of struggle for the Government and the people. The abolition of the Executive Presidency and the proposed changes to the electoral system will certainly require the widest public debate. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is correct in his statement that the new changes will be brought by the end of 2017. Yet, there is the need for proper galvanizing of the people for a political debate, which deals with the genuine public interest and democratic issues involved, and not the clashes of party politics.
The immediate challenge that comes up is from the approaching Local Government elections, and the efforts of the SLFP to regain its strength, with the direct or indirect leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa. There are already several voices in the SLFP challenging the leadership of President Maithripala Sirisena in that party. There are also the other smaller parties of the UPFA that are now forming a “Joint Opposition” and will give all support to the anti-Sirisena elements in the SLFP.
The recent Central Committee meeting of the SLFP has shown signs of coming to terms with the divisive forces within the party. It will certainly have to work hard and fast to enforce party discipline, both for proper party unity under a single leader, and also the wider issue of unity within the consensual government, which has brought both the larger UNP and the smaller SLFP together. Voices such as that of Minister Nimal Siriplala de Silva, who has seen the end of “yahapalanaya”, require curbing, in the best disciplinary manner, just as the UNP saw the exit of Tilak Marapana, for violating parliamentary tradition.
A double game
The entire issue of collective responsibility has to be brought into focus, when persons such as Nimal Siripala – a double-game politico- who has been playing at both ends of the political game, from the campaign for the January 8 poll and thereafter, and saw it fit to join the UNP-led consensus government after August 17. He must be made to remember that he could not give leadership to the SLFP in the Uva District, where it lost badly both in January and August this year, and all the noise he is making is while being part of the Cabinet of Ministers.
While there certainly are many questions about the current situation of “yahapalanaya”, those who have taken oaths to serve as ministers under that policy should know the meaning of collective responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality, or should have the strength to move out or be moved out with the necessary strength for such purpose.
The differences within the SLFP, and the possible new rise by MR in his 70th year, remain a possibility. Yet, the proposed constitutional changes give the Government the opportunity to organize the public on wider national issues that can go beyond party rivalry.
The other major issue where the Government has all the strength is to proceed with clear determination in the hunt for fraud, and the corrupt, who remain sheltered under the Rajapaksa Family Tree of corruption, and bringing them to book. That is the policy the people voted for so clearly on January 8th – as clearly as for the abolition of the Executive Presidency.
Courtesy:Daily News