{"id":132205,"date":"2014-10-27T11:31:44","date_gmt":"2014-10-27T06:01:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=132205"},"modified":"2014-11-05T00:35:24","modified_gmt":"2014-11-04T19:05:24","slug":"a-comment-on-a-comment-on-the-campaign-to-abolish-the-presidential-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/a-comment-on-a-comment-on-the-campaign-to-abolish-the-presidential-system\/","title":{"rendered":"A Comment On A Comment On The Campaign To Abolish The Presidential System"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Laksiri Fernando<\/span><\/a> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Dr.<\/a>

Dr. Laksiri Fernando<\/p><\/div>\n

In a recent article titled \u201cA Comment on the Campaign to Abolish the Presidential System,\u201d Professor G. H. Peiris has sought to challenge the arguments of the campaigners to abolish the presidential system and argues that the proponents of the campaign \u201coften tend to overlook the circumstances that culminated in the promulgation of a new constitution in 1978.\u201d As he has stated \u201cthe main innovative element of which was the introduction of a system of government headed by an executive president elected directly on the basis of an all-island poll.\u201d<\/p>\n

His arguments deserve careful attention for two main reasons. First, as he has stated, he is a \u201cno supporter of any political party\u201d and \u201cnever had a personal stake on the fortunes of any politician or party.\u201d Second, he has not denied the existence of certain ills in the present situation, if not the system, which he has summarized into three as (1) lack of transparency in financial matters (2) ham-handed decision making,, and (3) vestiges in criminalization of politics.<\/p>\n

His main conclusion seems to be the following: \u201cI am convinced that it is not the executive presidential system that constitutes the root cause for the prevailing ills.<\/i>\u201d However, he has not himself expressed clearly his prognosis of the root causes.<\/p>\n

Three Identified Ills <\/b><\/p>\n

\"If<\/a>

If R. Premadasa was living and contesting, Chandrika Kumaratunga would not have come to power in 1994. The UPFA came to power in 1994, and continues until today under the presidential system already for 20 years. This is hardly healthy for democracy. Presidential powers in Sri Lanka are like giving monkeys razor blades.<\/p><\/div>\n

It appears that people greatly differ in identifying the \u2018prevailing or recurrent ills\u2019 in present day politics in Sri Lanka and their \u2018roots causes.\u2019 Undoubtedly, there cannot be one root cause for any ill or ills and therefore abolition of the presidential system undoubtedly is not a panacea. In respect of present ills, G. H. Peiris has identified three, as advocated by others, but all with certain qualifications as follows.<\/p>\n

Ill 1<\/b>: \u201cLack of transparency in financial affairs of the government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Qualification<\/b>: \u201cThe irony is that this phenomenon is being highlighted by certain NGOs and segments of the media that are far more secretive of their own affairs than the government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ill 2<\/b>: \u201cHam-handed decision-making in certain prioritising investment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Qualification<\/b>: \u201cIllustrated by the lavish but under-utilised infrastructure at Mattala, Weerawila and Ranminitenna, ostensibly meant for developing an economically retarded area.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ill 3<\/b>: \u201cThe vestiges of criminalisation of politics.\u201d<\/p>\n

Qualification<\/b>: \u201cA global phenomenon the exemplifications of which is far more pronounced among our neighbours.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the above analysis, the ills are not that serious therefore in a way the author is logical and his position is understandable. However there are others, including myself, who see the situation more seriously and who believe that with the 18th<\/sup> Amendment the presidential system has become irreparable. On my part, I have never believed that a presidential system is a good system for Sri Lanka whatever the weaknesses of the parliamentary system or political regimes before.<\/p>\n

21 Reasons <\/b><\/p>\n

When I wrote about the \u201cDanger of the Third Term and How to Prevent It\u201d (15 October 2014), a well-meaning commenter asked me why the presidential system should be abolished as an institution. I happened to give 21 reasons quickly as follows in point form but not necessarily in a particular order. I still maintain them as reasons without any revision.<\/p>\n

(1) The present family rule depends on the presidential system. There were symptoms even before.<\/p>\n

(2) Presidential system has encouraged the militarization of the state even after the conclusion of the war. This is not recent, but has worsened in recent times.<\/p>\n

(3) Beyond the military, a strong politically coercive and ad hoc mechanism has been created to suppress political opponents under President\u2019s direct and indirect patronage.<\/p>\n

(4) The power of the state has almost completely moved from Diyawanna Oya to the Temple Trees.<\/p>\n

(5) All other Ministers including the PM are mere puppets in comparison to the President.<\/p>\n

(6) Key decisions are not made in Parliament or in the Cabinet, but within an inner circle of family and faithful bureaucrats.<\/p>\n

(7) Although the President may attend Parliament he\/she is not answerable to Parliament in a practical sense.<\/p>\n

(8) Presidential powers are enormous under the Constitution and he\/she has virtual immunity from prosecution\/legal accountability.<\/p>\n

(9) With the above powers and resources at hand, a Presidents can manipulate the Members of Parliament quite easily. This has been the case in the recent past although crumbling at present.<\/p>\n

(10) Under the presidential system, the functions and the level or quality of Parliament has degenerated although EP system is not the sole factor.<\/p>\n

(11) The opposition has become weak under the presidential system as there is no visible government in Parliament. Take the example of DMJ as the PM.<\/p>\n

(12) There is the possibility of conflict between the President and Parliament or even the President and the Cabinet like during 2002\/2004 at any time in the future jeopardizing the stability of the government and the country. This instability can be greater than in a cabinet\/parliamentary system.<\/p>\n

(13) A President has powers to disregard, take powers away or dissolve such an oppositional government and\/or Parliament.<\/p>\n

(14) A presidential system is extremely expensive and leads to corruption.<\/p>\n

(15) Crony capitalists and business manipulators can easily rally around a dubious president. This is not possible or easy in a Cabinet system.<\/p>\n

(16) The reasons given to establish an EP system by JR were flawed or no longer valid.<\/p>\n

(17) Cabinet or Parliamentary systems are proven to be better than a presidential system internationally.<\/p>\n

(18) There is an inherent tendency within a presidential system to become authoritarian and dictatorial particularly in a developing and a conflict ridden society. This is the history of the presidential system in Sri Lanka and in many countries.<\/p>\n

(19) People in Sri Lanka have voted for parties who have promised to abolish the presidential system in 1994, 2000 and 2005 although the elected governments failed to do so.<\/p>\n

(20) There is a broad agreement among political parties in the opposition today and also some in the government to abolish the presidential system. This is based on experiential knowledge.<\/p>\n

(21) Although the abolition of the presidential system is not a panacea it could be a springboard for greater democratic changes.<\/p>\n

In stating the present ills of the country, Prof. Peiris has identified \u2018criminalisation of politics\u2019 as one but with certain qualifications. What he talks about precisely is \u2018the vestiges of criminalisation\u2019 to mean there have been improvements. He is correct if he is referring to terrorism or criminalisation of politics as a consequence of that. However, the criminalisation of politics in other forms has entrenched into the electoral system and day to day politics both in the South and in the North. He has also made a qualification as I have already noted to reduce the gravity of the criminalisation, \u2018as a global phenomenon\u2019 which is \u2018far more pronounced among our neighbours.\u2019 This is simply not prudent.<\/p>\n

The curse of the presidential system, in my opinion, in contrast to a parliamentary system is its entrenchment in power and abuse of power with possible corruption. This is not merely an individual problem but a systemic and a structural one. Why people abuse power is a perennial question. If we take the old axiom that \u2018power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely\u2019 this is more relevant in the context of a presidential system than in a parliamentary system. One may argue that presidential powers are constrained with checks and balances. If that is the case it is well and good like in the United States to a great extent. But this is not the situation in many developing and conflict ridden countries, and particularly not in Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

Pre-1978 Circumstances <\/b><\/p>\n

Prof. Peiris has identified many instances of abuse of power prior to 1978, particularly during 1970-77 and I don\u2019t have any objection; no amnesia at all. However, that abusive government could be overturned within few years through democratic elections. Moreover, those abusive and erroneous policies were not an excuse to install a system or a structure which has proved to be more prone to abuse and political harm. He has said that \u201cThe most persuasive arguments in support of the reform converged on the theme of rampant abuses under the earlier \u2018Prime Minister-Cabinet\u2019 system constitutionally founded on a \u2018first past the post\u2019 system of elections to the legislature<\/i>.\u201d This is not completely correct if you go by the arguments put forward by J. R. Jayewardene in proposing a presidential system first in December 1966 and defending it thereafter. I might find occasion to come back to that question some other time.<\/p>\n

The above does not mean that the parliamentary system that existed before was abuse free or fool-proof. At the same time people who advocate the abolition of the presidential system do not or should not consider the mere abolition is a solution to the present situation. Some of the other necessary conditions are as follows in my opinion.<\/p>\n