Well begun is half done

The People’s Alliance, the chief constituent of the UPFA and the main Opposition United National Party have agreed to do away with the executive Presidency and instead create an executive Prime Minister who would be responsible to Parliament. This is a move that would certainly be welcomed by the vast majority of the general public who had come to view the executive Presidency as being chiefly responsible for all the ills that beset the nation since its introduction in 1978.

It is only under the overwhelming powers wielded by an Executive President that a situation arose where miscreants who stoned the houses of Supreme Court Judges were deemed exercising their democratic rights or a Police Officer accused of assaulting a well-known Left politician during a demonstration had his fine paid by the State and promoted for good measure. These are just two examples.

Hence the opprobrium with which the office of the executive Presidency was treated by the public.

There are however those who favour the retention of the Executive Presidency such as the JHU who contend that it came in useful during the battle against terrorism. With the Government surviving with only the slimmest of majorities in Parliament, the Presidency acted as the chief bulwark against scuttling of the war effort. Those for the Executive Presidency cite the example of the 2007 Budget where the Government barely survived being outvoted in Parliament. Had this happened the President would have stepped into the breach and saved the day for the Government and the battle against the LTTE kept on course.

On the other side of the coin the Executive Presidency has come to be viewed as an institution that has too much power concentrated in it that goes to undermine the legislature and other independent arms of the State. The immunity from legal action enjoyed by an incumbent is another sore point with the public who had over the years witnessed how the holders of the office ran roughshod over public interest and opinion. The Executive Presidency also can bypass regulations and guidelines entrenched in the system leaving room for abuse and arbitrary action.

This is not to say that the Office of Executive Prime Minister we had before was perfect and free from ills. But these paled into insignificance compared to scope for abuse inherent in the enormous powers wielded by an Executive President.

During the Presidential Election campaign President Mahinda Rajapaksa said it is only he who would be in the best position to abolish the Executive Presidency on the grounds that it would be his final term and thus he would have no interest in seeing its continuation. It appears now that those who voted him for a second term to see the end of the Presidential system are about to be vindicated.

The Executive Presidency had come in for so much flak that at every election its abolishment became the key platform of all candidates. This was due to the utter chaos it had created in the country’s body politic and overarching influence that went on to undermine all legislative and administrative safeguards in the State structure. It was plain that the Presidential form of government was introduced by its chief architect to cloth himself with untrammeled powers that were abused to the hilt. The steam roller majority he enjoyed in Parliament came in handy for this abuse.

That subsequent incumbents were prevented from bulldozing their way was only due to the fact that they lacked a two thirds majority. In this respect President Rajapaksa should be commended for going ahead with his pledge to do away with the Presidency given that he virtually commands a two thirds majority in the present Parliament and has the least reason to see the back of the Presidency.

As stated the Presidency was associated with the denegation of the country’s political culture that was chiefly introduced for the self aggrandizement of a single individual. That he wanted a further term and was contemplating tinkering with the Constitution using the five sixth majority to pave the way for this is only too well-known, but was stymied in his bid due the wave of unpopularity he had to contend with.

On the contrary, President Rajapaksa is at the zenith of his popularity and the Executive Presidency has not been an issue with the electorate. In fact the Presidency came in handy during the successful prosecution of the war and there was a growing voice for its retention. Hence the President has acted unselfishly in deciding to do away with the Executive Presidency when there was a clamour for its retention.

The coming together of the two major political parties on such a crucial issue augurs well for bypartisan politics in the future. The decision to appoint a joint Committee comprising members of both sides to implement the decisions arrived at too is a move in the right direction. Such a bipartisan approach no doubt will be welcomed by the public at this crucial time when the country is turning a new leaf following the end to the three decade long war.