Anyone for a weak government?

One of the biggest criticisms of the executive presidency is the concentration of power in a single individual or, as the former Chief Justice Sarath N Silva said recently, ‘the accumulation of power in a single institution comprising of one person or several, whether elected or hereditary’. Silva, quoting James Madison, says this would be the definition of tyranny.

Sometimes powers are seized by men. Sometimes men find themselves inhabiting institutions and positions endowed with extensive power. Sometimes they want to change the structures of power, correct flaws and deliver a more just system of governance but are constrained by political realities and systemic resistance as well. Sometimes they are just happy with the way things are.

Today we have candidates promising to abolish the executive presidency, speaking as though that is the one and only flaw in our political system and if removed would automatically usher in a period of absolutely breathtaking prosperity. Election-time is made for such idyllic portrayal, we know this.

It is true however that people sometimes actually believe that such things can be delivered. The other day I was speaking to some people who said they would vote for a candidate who will abolish the executive presidency.

I asked them how this would happen, this business of abolishing it, and they didn’t have an answer. They reverted to the simple and simplistic ‘he said he would do it’. I can understand some random voter not understanding that certain things are easier said than done, but how about those who are in the know, those who have studied our political system, the Constitution, its flaws and the provisions for its annulment or amendment? They are not saying anything, are they? And this implies, does it not, that it is not about the executive presidency and all the ills it is made of and generates but about a face-preference, a party-preference?

Now it is pretty clear that the Constitution cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority in Parliament voting for change and that decision subsequently being ratified via a referendum. Some argue about turning the Parliament into a constituent assembly, but the legality and indeed ethicality of such a measure remains questionable. Simply put it is ridiculous to violate the Constitution and butcher the spirit of democracy to make things more democratic.

Some say that electoral victory amounts to popular mandate and that this would suffice to give legality to amendment through simple and not two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Poppycock! That argument has some sense only in referenda, not in elections of this sort where manifestos are made of multiple promises.

Let’s humour these people a little, however. Let us assume that the executive presidency is abolished on, say, January 29, 2009. Executive powers would then be devolved to a Cabinet of Ministers led by a Prime Minister. Did anyone bother to wonder about the parliamentary composition, the all important arithmetic that can make or break governments?

A situation where executive power is diffused would necessarily deliver an extremely weak, fragile and untenable government simple because the Proportional Representation system will not give the ruling party/coalition happy numbers. This is why abolishing the executive presidency has to go hand in hand with a reform of the electoral system. The Proportional Representation system would have to be replaced by either a first-past-the-post arrangement or a mix of several possible systems, whatever makes for political stability.

Constitutional reform, ideally, has to be motivated by a desire for better governance and all related processes must be governed by the non-negotiable called ‘political stability’. Safeguards against anarchy have to be written in if such exercises are to yield anything close to what is desired. The current rhetoric sounds hollow for this very reason: it ignores the issue of stability, of robust institutions that resist a quick slippage into anarchy. Let’s put it in terms that anyone should be able to understand.

The Executive Presidency is abolished. Parliamentary elections are called. Someone wins, hopefully with a majority, but certainly not with anywhere close to the two-thirds that make for easy constitutional amendment, not even with the inevitable horse-trading that follows a general election. The Government is and will be plagued throughout its tenure by the problem of instability.

There is a way out (assuming that the legal objections to the kind of constitutional reform talked about are dealt with): the abolishing of the executive presidency is brought about at the same time that the PR system is abolished.

What happens? Out goes the JVP down the PR-less tube. The bird might devour the pachyderm but ideal scenarios are only good for fiction and fantasy.

There are two things that cannot exist together; abolishing the executive presidency and the PR system. You need the JVP to get to first base with regard to the former (and it is still not guaranteed that you will manage to do it), but the second will see the JVP getting kicked out. Do these people understand this? Of course they do.

Why then would the JVP act against its self-interest? Simple: they are not serious. They are not serious and neither is the candidate of their choice serious about this promise. Good for rhetoric, not for the nation, sad to say.

So the next time people talk about constitutional reform, abolishing the executive presidency, restoring democracy just ask them how they are going to do with, with whom, and with reference to which constitutional provision etc. And if they cannot give coherent answers, don’t ask anything else from them. Just conclude that which has to be concluded: it is all a lie, this democracy-talk; it is all about power, nothing else. [email protected].