Those who market rumours of corruption and abuse of power failed to substantiate accusations:

Executive PM over President

M.M. Zuhair PC

No one knows the difference between an Executive President and an Executive Prime Minister. The Opposition has not explained to the country why they prefer an Executive PM over an Executive President.

No one in the Opposition has placed before the country as to why the Opposition’s preferred option is an Executive PM elected by voters from only one electoral district in the country as opposed to the current system where the President is elected by the entire country.

Healthy debate

Of course, for nearly three decades, a healthy debate had been going on in this country on Constitutional reforms, with sections demanding the abolition of the Executive Presidency without spelling out alternatives while others support reforms in the Executive Presidency on a comprehensive basis that would include reforms in the electoral system and also a consideration of the power exercised by political parties. The debate is likely to go on for years.

The main argument put forward by those seeking the abolition of the Executive Presidency is that this institution is anti-democratic or authoritarian and that there is intolerable abuse of the powers of the Presidency.

Abuse of power is also being alleged even where power is exercised within the framework of the Constitution, where the holder of the office of Presidency is bound to uphold the Constitution. No system can be claimed to be perfect. Much would depend on the holder of the office of President as well as on an active Opposition exercising all legitimate powers available under the law. Widespread accusations unsupported by credible evidence have been made, though no one in the Opposition has placed any such accusations before the duly constituted authorities in the country.

During the period of the present President, for instance there had not been a single instance in which Parliament had invoked Article 42 of the Constitution according to which the “President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security”.

No attempt had been made even under Article 38 (2) of the Constitution by any Member of Parliament as required by this Article, to impeach the President for any intentional violation of the Constitution, acts of treason, bribery, misconduct, corruption or abuse of the office of the President etc., if there were any such violations.

Incumbent President

In fact no one has attempted to sue the President under Article 35 (3) of the Constitution in respect of any alleged violation in respect of the subjects and functions retained by him, for example as Defence Minister or as Finance Minister.

Is it therefore wrong to assume that the incumbent President had acted constitutionally and that acting constitutionally is perfectly democratic?

What then is the legitimacy to demand, come election time, the abolition of the elected Presidency?

The run up to the on going election has already seen the Opposition marketing rumours of corruption. But no one has so far placed any material even before the Bribery Commission, with facts and figures. Can we believe that the entire Opposition is afraid of the Executive Presidency or is it that the Opposition is exploiting the vulnerability of the ordinary voters to believe their stories?

In the absence of proper steps being taken by the Opposition displaying itself as a responsible Opposition, there is no credibility that could be attached to rumours, and unsubstantiated allegations. Of course, this does not mean that there may not be any abuse of powers or authoritarian tendencies in the exercise of power.

Even the powers of a Prime Minister whether executive or non executive could be abused. Former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike was stripped of her civic rights on the ground that she allegedly abused her powers as the then Prime Minister. There are many who believe that JRJ elected under the earlier first past the post system abused his powers to strip Mrs. B. of her civic rights, so that she could not contest the 1982 Presidential election. In fact Mrs. B. could not contest the 1982 Presidential Election. Hecter Kobbekaduwa contested instead and lost to JRJ.

Presidential election

In the forthcoming Presidential election, the situation is just the opposite. Leader of the Opposition, rejected by the people in nearly 20 consecutive elections, does not want to face the country and earn yet another defeat. A new candidate, whose only credential is to share the credit for the war victory with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is facing the hustings. He has given some hope to a totally dejected Opposition.

The worst recorded abuse of the powers of a Prime Minister happened on February 22, 2002, when the then PM Ranil Wickremesinghe signed the division of the country into two-one Sinhala and the other Tamil with clear identified boundaries, by executing the CFA with LTTE leader Prabhakaran, the PM succumbing to or even encouraged by international pressure. The abuse of his powers became clear as the PM never consulted the elected President CBK or his own Cabinet. The Parliament was also kept in the dark. Under pressure from external forces, the PM acted like a puppet of foreign powers.

Abuse of power

The bottom line is that the abuse of powers or authoritarianism has nothing to do with the nature of the office, namely President or Prime Minister but would primarily depend on the personality of the holder of the office and also upon an Opposition which does not neglect the legitimate channels of exposure of alleged authoritarian tendencies or the abuse of powers.

What is obvious is that the principal backers of the Opposition candidate Sarath Fonseka, namely the UNP and the JVP, whose only known agreement between them is the abolition of the elected Presidency appear confused, with an early election thrust on them. Ranil Wickremesinghe has declared himself as the next Executive Prime Minister, if Sarath Fonseka wins while JVP’S Somawansa Amarasinghe has disputed Ranil Wickremesinghe’s claim for Prime Ministership, leaving particularly the business community and others in a state of confusion.

Both the SLMC and TNA would lose drastically their vote base by any final decision on their part to support the abolition of the Executive Presidency thereby depriving the voters of the minority communities the only opportunity of electing a national leader while giving away that opportunity to a small majoritarian voter base in an electoral district which would have less than 5 percent of the votes of the country.

President J.R. Jayawardene won the 1982 Presidential election with 52.91 percent of the national votes. At that election, in the Jaffna electoral district, Tamil Congress leader Kumar Ponnambalam got 87,000 votes, Hector Kobbekaduwa got 77,000 votes and J.R J got 44,000 votes.

Who wants to deprive the Jaffna voter from electing his next President? Who wants to deny the Jaffna voter the opportunity of displaying that he is for one united Sri Lanka by electing his preferred leader? We need to remember that the majority of voters in the Jaffna district voted at that election defying the call by the TULF for the Tamils in the country to boycott the polls.

The point that I wish to make is that the results of this and the subsequent Presidential Elections would show that minority votes have played a significant role in Presidential Elections, though that by itself is no guarantee of good governance in respect of the minorities. Without this opportunity, things could be worse.

Pleasing the minority voter as well would be a good strategy for any likely winner for the country’s highest office. Such an opportunity may not be available in electing a Prime Minister from a limited area.

If Sri Lanka is to keep pace with other countries, this country will require a strong government in Parliament in addition to a strong elected President, particularly to forge ahead with economic progress and to cease dependence on foreign aid. The PR system as presently operated is a luxury that third world countries could ill-afford. It will make us dependent on foreign donors for decades to come.

The writer is a former Member of Parliament [email protected]