We need to stay with the presidential system that has proved so successful
By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Amongst the many sticks used to beat me and the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka now is the claim that we have abandoned our commitment to the abolition of the Executive Presidency.
Martin Lee, the Hongkong Lawyer who allowed himself to be used by Basil Fernando, the strange Sri Lankan who in effect runs the Asian Human Rights Commission, talks about the 2005 manifesto of President Rajapaksa, forgetting that, while the Liberal Party felt that that manifesto was infinitely better than any alternative, we ourselves were not committed to it.
He ignores the fact that the latest manifesto, with which we are proud to be associated, makes it clear that the Executive Presidency will continue, though it will be modified.
Interestingly, Rohan Edrisinha, the Centre for Policy Alternatives’ distinguished constitutional expert who left the Liberal Party in 1991, claimed that his reason for supporting Sarath Fonseka’s candidacy was that the main question for Sri Lankans was the abolition of the Executive Presidency. His support however continued even when General Fonseka made it clear that he had no intention of abolishing that position straight away, were he to be elected to it.
Indeed the manner in which former Human Rights activists, from the National Peace Council and CPA for instance, flocked to the Fonseka banner, made it quite clear that morality in their case ran only skin deep. The characteristic Jehan Perera blush, when I asked whether he had been propelled into this ridiculous position by his Western backers, suggested I was not far wrong, though that is not of course evidence.
On the issue of the Executive Presidency, it should be noted that I have consistently argued that the problem is not the Presidency itself, but the concentration of power in a single individual. This is a phenomenon that has developed over the years even under a Westminster system. Bagehot in the 19th century bewailed the fact that the sovereignty of Parliament was under threat from the power of the Cabinet, and in the 20th century all political commentators noted that the Cabinet itself was no longer a body in which the Prime Minister was the first among equals, rather he was now totally dominant.
I have frequently pointed out that the least successful governments we had were those of 1970, under the Westminster model, and of 1977, where the Presidential system was introduced. The reason was the overwhelming power of the government in Parliament, two thirds in both cases. The reason the second was infinitely worse, apart from its grotesque extension, was the entrenchment of that two thirds majority through the prevention of crossovers and bye-elections.
The reason that, on balance, I personally prefer a Presidential system is indicated in ‘Ideas for Constitutional Reform’, from which Martin Lee quotes selectively, with no understanding of my description of the positive features of the American and French constitutions. Westminster allows for concentration of power, because unlike when Montesquieu wrote, it institutionalizes the twinning of the legislative and the executive.
A Presidential system however demands a separation of powers, which President Jayewardene totally rejected, even though he had claimed in his manifesto that that was what he wanted, and though it was a crucial element in the constitutions he claimed were his models.
The failure of A J Wilson to discuss this anomaly, in his woeful apologia for Jayewardene entitled The Gaullist Constitution of Sri Lanka, is what first made me doubt his integrity as well as his academic capacity when it came to political advantage.
Chanaka Amaratunga, whose affection for British practices was deeper than mine, did initially believe in a return to Westminster, but he went the whole hog and suggested someone like a monarch, because he believed that the Head of State should not merely be a rubber stamp for a Prime Minister.
In time however he modified his view because, when he wrote Gamini Dissanayake’s manifesto for the 1994, and advocated the abolition of the Executive Presidency, Mr Dissanayake insisted that there be alternatives instead, to be placed before the people at a referendum. He had told Chanaka that he was welcome to campaign for abolition, but that he himself would work for a modified Executive Presidency and that his views would triumph. I should note that the suggestions Chanaka introduced for limiting the powers of the President should be a model for such an institution.
It was on this manifesto that Srima Dissanayake stood, but with the UNP itself under its revitalized traditional leadership rooting for her defeat, Chandrika Kumaratunga was elected, and promptly forgot about the abolition of the Presidency until the time came for extending her tenure in power. Rohan Edrisinha, and Dr Saravanamuttu, who had advocated her cause and hoped to influence her, had their hopes dashed, which did not prevent them rallying round General Fonseka a decade and a half later.
Doubtless they will continue on this track, but the country must move on, and look at political principles, not dogma based on blind opposition to particular politicians. What is generally agreed is that power should not be absolute. However, limitations on power should be based on valid constitutional principles, which means we should look at practices elsewhere.
Obviously we should not blindly follow external practices which may prove unsuitable for this country, but equally we should not pride ourselves on idiosyncrasy for its own sake, as was practiced by President Jayewardene, who boasted of doing things his way, and spawned two violent insurrections, a monstrous electoral system, an obsequious Supreme Court (v. Justice Rodrigo’s judgment on one of the Referendum cases) and repeated government sponsored attacks on minorities.
Careful consideration of practices elsewhere, weighed in terms of our own needs, will allow us to develop a saner electoral system, a better way than the confused and confusing 17th amendment of limiting the absolute authority of the Presidency with regard to crucial appointments, a second chamber that will allow for better consultation without excessive delay, without replicating the arbitrary and unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords, which was the problem with the Senate we had initially.
In the process we need I believe to stay with the Presidential system, that has proved so successful in recent years, and has contributed more to development than Westminster did. However we must also remember that an incompetent Executive President can be a disaster, which is why we should strengthen accountability and justiciability.
23 Comments
I believe that Prof Wijesinghe is a intelligent and experienced person about the society. But from this comment , I think it is completely opposit. Majority of the country reject the Presidential sustem because it is giving power to one person. Sometimes it is going cracy specially in the Election time where you cannot see ant democracy.
I donot know whether he has made this comment in a sleepy moment.
Yes, we need to keep the presidential system to tame the judiciary, to use the armed forces for maximum benefit of the incumbent president, to keep corrupted politicians like Mervin Silva, Rohitha Bogollagama and others, to give tax free salaries and tax free cars to politicians, yes we need it so that we can neglect the requirements of the constitution and we can give huge sums of tax payer money to people like you just for singing hosanna to ruling elite. Shame on you man.
What makes our learned doctor think that our Presidential System has proved so successful? May be a midsummer nights dream.
This man Rajeeva Wijesinghe ...When he was briefly at S. Thomas's College as Sub warden he wanted the teachers who taught him to "Sir" him. He is such a lunatic. What more can we expect . We are yet to find out who gave this so called doctorate + professorship. Worth finding out. We do not trust him.
Dear,
We have to stay with this system but do not forget the facts that this system need to be changed. We are very poor country,we do not have to pay the former president doing nothing to country just leaving in Europe and make million dollars bills for her security for the cost to people in country,
we need to change this system and make better way how people can handle.JR did lot of wrong thinks to sri lanka and people pay price.you need to understand some time mad man can be president and make thinks worse for people.
The illustrious RW knows how to wag his tail without hurting a fly. He should be awarded another title from the University of Professional Boot-lickers. Amazing, how some erudite individuals can go astray when it comes to personal benefits, not caring for the future of his own kiths and kins, not to mention the country.
What is wrong with most of our high profile (supposed to be) men of knowledge with fancy qualifications?
Look at another specimen in the form of GLP! I sometimes wonder whether he himself understands some of his own mutterings. He thinks whatever he blabbers out has to be the law. I sincerely feel sorry for all those law students whom he had been confusing for all those years.
“Politics without principles,Education without character,Science without humanity,and Commerce without morality are not only useless, but also positively dangerous.” - Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Any one other than the opportunistic politicians of course, educated or otherwise, who think the current Presidential system should have his head examined!
Most so called learned men have to sing for thier supper now in Sri Lanka. Can you imagine any group of Vice-Chancellors of Universities in any country issuing statements before an election to support a political candidate.
Free expression is gone; it is stifled or bought over.
Under such a situation, people who are in the payroll of the state can say anything provided it is pro-government.
I had some respect for the author as an independant thinker, but not any more.
Everyone rubbishes JRJ for introducing a 'Bahubootha' constitution. However, they use that to their advantage to exploit it to their personal gain. The winning of the war against LTTE was helped by the powers, but what about all the other independant commissions? Bashing JRJ and the INGOs have become a past time of our politicians who are not worth a penny.
The major parties keep on giving the party ticket to drug dealers, thugs and other unsavoury elements as a reward for services rendered.
I hope our voters would give them a good kick in the butt this time if they are found to be unsavoury, irrespective of party affiliations. Mahinda has got the presdential vote, but that does not give the governing group to allow the country to be dragged in to to a quagmire.
Executive presiency has served no better than worse.Those who argue that it helped immensly for the president to use his power in adecisive time like the war situation in order to end the the war should understand theat there were many presidents who were berore the incumbent president .Why did they fail to use their power as executive presidents to put an end to war? even in the past most of the predents used their executive power not in the right way but to supress the power of opossition.under the pretext of powers vested to him or her.Therefore the executive powers are not necessary if any government is doing the right thing in the interest of people.opposition will have nothing much to do under such a situation.
This just goes to show the extent to which even so-called educated minds can be bought over for material gain. Can you now see the folly of blaming corrupt politicians like Mervyn and RobAllagama and Ravi K,and Anuruddha Ratwatte and..... and.......and.........
This man clearly needs to have his professorial head examined.
Sri Lanka Progressive Front, whoever or whatever you are; and whatever your academic credentials are and wherever from, my friend Rajiva Wijesinha's doctorate is from Oxford, a university he entered on a prestigious scholarship while in his teens.
The wxecutive presidency is not the problem.The worst thing is the attitude of we Sri lankans.From the beginning of our own pariamentary system we nutured nepotism,corruption,killings and also racism whether we were Tamils,Muclims or Singhalese.Why we go so far?Take the discipline of our roads!Do all these people who shouted at politicians for corruption drive according to the laws?Why we are different from people of Norwagian countries or Switzerland or USA when we drive? The simple answer is as long as we Sri lankans keep our attitudes the same way any kind of political system will not change the country.People have to learn to say sorry and excuse me in the first place.We say we have moral values than other nations.But we still carry caste system and at the same time Tamils say Singhalese carry ahte for thaem as they are Tamil and Singhalese say the same thing about Tamils and Muslims the same.So it is the attitude and not the political systen that ruins our country.
To continue with Sinhala totalitarianism !!!
The Presidency has been well tested and the track records prove that it is better for Silly Lankan to have
one, if any only, with curtailed powers and strict
accountability.
This is clearly an inspired message from you-know-who
what the preference is. So be sure - for some years to come the ExecPresidential system will continue.
ISS
* Defeated 30 years of Terrorism
* Eliminated the drug barons, crime boses and contract killers
* 7-8 % Economic growth
* Unprecedeted Infrastructure development.
* Record foreign reserves
* New International Harbour and New International Airport
* No extortions and forced conscriptions.
* Record numbers of Tourists.
* Accolades from all corners of the Globe for the Economic progress
* Per Capita from US$ 1000 to US$ 2200 in 4 years.
This is a pretty good score card even better than the Aussie cricket team.
So why do you want to clip the Captain's wings?
Compare these stats with any other 4 year period in the past Governments since Independence.
We may or not agree with Dr. Rajiva Wijesinghe. But to use the word "lunatic" reduces all of us to a new low. He comes from a family of highly respected Sri Lankans who have served the country well in many disciplines - education, Parliamentary procedure and history, medicine, economics and social welfare. I know many brilliant Tamil young whom the family helped gain higher studies in the UK. Any truly educated society would have adopted the lofty and clean politics Rajiva and the late Chanaka tried to introduce into our system via the Liberal Party - and the country would have found unity and prosperity long ago. But we were simply not upto it. when he comes on BBC and the global media, he does the country proud with his quality intervention - though we may demur on the contents. Compare this to the other buffoons at the higher levels of the Govt who bring us disgrace.
I think the writer owes an apology to Professor Rajiv W.
ISS
This guy has already sold his soul for a pittance.
He is also Dayan Jayatilleka's buddy.
No one shall take him seriously.
This person or so called prof.has gone crazy with power thirst.We have seen same kind of people, when president premadas was in power.But no body ever achieved anything other than perks and benefits for themselves.There are no values for credentials,if they are not for good course of action.It doesnt matter wether they are from oxford,cambridge or Harvard.Ghandi never use his credentials to serve people.But he always took the right path.He never licked anyones feets.When I read the article I feel shamed about our fake intellectuals.They are not thinking and talking with their brains!
Confirmed! Now DJ has attested his credentials what more we need?
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education." Bertrand Russell
Executive presidency in wrong hands,is a garland in the
hands of a monkey and a bull in a china shop.According
to what we have witnessed in the past twelve some yrs,
there's no guarantee of having this smart,rebellious
and at times nasty equippment,on the lap of a seasoned
dignified character.JRJ made it double edged.One to
defend and the other to offend if necessary.He had a
mammoth task of introducing,maintaining and running far reaching changes for what he thought best for the
country.No doubt he planned at least a silver jubilee
in power with his trained men carrying on.If it was not for LTTE situations would have been different.
What's happening today is,largely using only one side of the equippment just to carry on survival mantra as long as possible without much toil.People of all walks are being bought over and blind folded so that nobody can see that they are sitting on JRJ's savings.Simply the govt is using the constitution to enjoy benefits
by killing time,thus causing disaster to economy.Look at them,they all have started to talk about a hostile world that's conspiring against the paradise and from the back door,screaming for help from the same hostile world.This is the beauty of putting the constitution into good use.If a constitution does allow what's
happening in the country today,then it must change.
ISS,
Sri Lanka Progressive Front should not apologize.
Dr.Rajiva Wijesingha is a western educated, extrmely bright(Oxford at 16), liberal intellectual.
Therefore, he has no business to speak like Dr.Mervin Silva(Grade 10 drop out at 16).
How-ever, if he does insist on speaking like Dr.Mervin Silva,he should be treated with all the contempt he deserves.
By the way, every time Dr.Rajiva appears on BBC or writes to the Guardian, he does bring us disgrace,defame,dyspepsia,disappointment and depression!
"Sri Lanka Progressive Front, whoever or whatever you are; and whatever your academic credentials are and wherever from, my friend Rajiva Wijesinha's doctorate is from Oxford, a university he entered on a prestigious scholarship while in his teens."
Posted by: Dayan Jayatilleka
To whom, How much, did his parents pay ,or which strings did they pull before he got his scolaship????.
Like your father did it for you pal.