By Javid Yusuf –

Javid Yusuf

One of the most compelling items on the National Agenda currently is the question of  Constitutional Reform. And the most critical aspect of the Constitutional Reform process  must necessarily be the issue of the Executive Presidency.

After a near 40 year experience with this all powerful institution there is general consensus that the institution must be reformed and the Executive Presidency abolished. Yet there are some  who argue to retain this institution. While there are some who genuinely believe, albeit in the face of evidence to the contrary, that a centralised form of governance is beneficial to the country, the more vocal of the proponents of the Executive Presidency do so with vested interests.

The central premise of the call for the abolishing of the Executive Presidency is based on the need to democratize the structure of the State. Sovereignity in the Sri Lankan Constitution resides in the people and the concept of an all powerful Executive is at complete variance with the people’s sovereignity  as it isolates itself from the sovereign people.

The founder of the 1978 Constitution J.R.  Jayewerdene justified the Executive Presidency on the basis that “it would not be subject to the whims and fancies of Parliament.” Given that Parliament comprises the representatives of the people what this means is that the Institution of  the Executive Presidency is insulated from the will of the people which is therefore the antithesis of democracy.

The dangers of a Presidential form of Government were highlighted by far sighted leaders of this country well before it was  enacted in the 1978 Constitution. Dudley Senanayake opposed  it when it was first suggested. Dr. N.M. Perera  and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva vehemently argued against it and pointed out the negative impact it would have on the country when  the 1978 Constitution was being drafted.

When the 1972 Constitution was being formulated by Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s Government, J.R. Jayewerdene  proposed that the Executive Presidency be included in the new Constitution  but  the SLFP Leader vetoed the idea stating that such an institution did not suit Sri Lanka. This despite the fact that she would have been the  first beneficiary of the Executive Presidency which would have clothed her with virtually unlimited powers.

Over three decades after Sri Lanka’s unhappy experience  with the Executive Presidency  the Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera launched the National Movement for Social Justice and relentlessly campaigned for the abolition of the Executive Presidency. His tireless effort culminated  in the victory of President Maithripala Sirisena at the Presidential Elections of January 8, 2015 whose campaign was primarily based on the platform of aboliishing  the Executive Presidency.

Two and a half years after the change of Government  the Constitution Reform process is in danger of being derailed with still no end in sight. According to the resolution setting up the Constitutional Assembly the next step in the process is for the report of the Steering Committee to be presented to the Constitutional Assembly for debate and discussion. Although it was scheduled to be placed  before the Constitutional Assembly in January this year it has been delayed  reportedly due to the SLFP segment in the Government dragging its feet in submitting its proposals.

The Constitutional Assembly resolution envisages that once the Steering Committee report is discussed in the Consitutional Assembly it will be sent  back to the Steering Committee to incorporate the suggestions made in the debate. Thereafter the Steering Committee will prepare a draft  of the proposed Constitution which will be debated in the Constitutional Assembly. After approval by the Constitutional Assembly the draft will be submitted to the Cabinet and after its approval will thereafter be submitted to Parliament. After  approval  by Parliament  it will inevitably have to be submitted to the people at a referendum.

At the pace at which the Constitution reform process has been moving the above steps will take us at least into the end of next  year. With local Government Elections and Provincial Council Elections scheduled for next year and the election for President (if not abolished) slated for 2019 the chances of success with regard to Constitution making are becoming increasingly remote.

From the noises that the Joint Opposition are making it is crystal clear that they will make every effort to block Constitution reform by raising the bogeys of danger to Budddhism and division of the country. The SLFP segment of the Government too does not have its heart in the process as evidenced by the continued  delay in submitting its proposals. Some of them are determined to protect the Executive Presidency and have openly claimed that President Mathripala Sirisena must listen to the wishes of the SLFP Central Committee even if it meant going against the mandate he received at the January 2015 Election.

A  clear insight into the thinking of the SLFPers in Government can be seen when reading an interview given by Minister S. B. Dissanayake to the Nation newspaper of July 16, 2017.

To the question whether the new  Constitution is not being given priority he says: “ Nothing is happening in this regard. We will put things as told by the Mahanayakes  of the three  Nikayas (sects). As the SLFP it is our decision that nothing in the present Constitution should be changed. However, even though we discuss about a new Constitution our priority is in relation to Electoral system reforms, the 20^th  amendment to the Constitution.We voted in favour of the 19^th amendment to the Constitution because it was promised  that electoral reforms in the form of the 20^th amendment would be brought. Yet to this day the 20^th amendment has not been brought. Therefore our priority is the  20^th amendment. “

When Minister S. B. Dissanyake stated in his interview  that the next SLFP Presidential candidate would be Mathripala Sirisena it was pointed out to him that President Sirisena had stated that the 2015 Presidential Election would be the only time he would contest for the Presidency. Mr. Dissanayake’s response was interesting:

“He stated such before he took over the Chairmanship of the SLFP. Therefore such is not applicable to us. We are the ones who decide our party’s candidates. It is the party that decides. If the Party decides the President will because he is someone who loves the party and is someone who rose in rank along with the Party. He will not turn his back on the Party’s decision.”

Translated it means that even if the decision of the Party (which essentially means those who supported  Mahinda Rajapaksa at the last Presidential election ) is to go against the Peoples’ mandate , President Sirisena has to oblige.

Further insight into the thinking of SLFPers in Government  is evidenced  by the actions of Ministers Susil Premajayanth and Faiszer Mustapha when they objected to the presence of Dr. Jayampathi Wickremaratne who had been invited to explain the Constitution making  process to the SLFP group in Government a few months ago. Dr. Jayampathi who is leading the process was the best person to dispel any doubts or clarify all matters regarding the process. However taking into consideration the totality of the approach of the SLFP ers in Government the attitude of these two Ministers was not surprising.

Minister Susil Premajayanth had backed Mahinda Rajapaksa at the last Presidential Elections while Faiszer Mustapha had spent several days in Singapore at the tail end of the campaign and returned  and crossed over a few days before the Elections only after making sure that the wind was blowing  in favour of Maithripala Sirisena and that he was now  the front runner. Not surprisingly therefore both of them therefore have no commitment or loyalty to President Sirisena’s pledges to the country.

It is therefore paramount  that the government moves to fast track  the Constitutional  Reform process and without any further delay  produce a draft  which can be discussed and adopted before the end of the year. Otherwise  this too may end up as another of  Sri Lanka’s long list of lost opportunities.

If one looks back at our past experiences of Constitution making one will notice a clear pattern.  In the two previous processes that succeeded the 1972 Constitution was enacted within two years of the United Front  Government assuming office while the 1978 Constitution was enacted one year of the UNP  assuming office in 1977.

The Constitution reform process that failed was Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge’s process  which started in 1994 and was aborted in 2000 despite a concurrent and vigorous  media campaign to educate the masses  which is sadly lacking in the case of the present Government.

The bright spot in the present Constitutional reform process is the flexibility of the Tamil National Alliance and the principled stand of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna who despite their differences with the Government  have committed to support the process. The silence of the Muslim Parties is  deafening with not a word to indicate their stand on the subject or to influence the process.

The Government including the President and Prime Minister need to act fast to achieve the goals of the Yahapalanaya administration with special emphasis on  the abolition of  the Executive presidency, Electoral reforms and devolution of power. Any further delay and failure to take decisive action  may result in the ground slipping away from under their feet and the National Agenda being undermined.