Sri Lanka, the crisis station is faced with a unique turmoil ‘‘home grown’ and created by the President himself by virtue of the office he holds. The advocates of the Executive Presidential system claimed and continue to claim that an executive President will bring about stability, reconciliation among the ethnic groups, well calculated strategies for the establishment of democratic practices which will lead to good governance!

Instead it would appear as if the President woke up one morning and thought he could no longer stand the turn of events as they are and needed to shuffle around his options to bring about change, and that too immediately. He therefore took the first step, the dismissal of his Prime Minister of three years, his partner in the campaign of 2015 to overthrow the former President.

 Is an Executive President necessary for Sri Lanka?

  Many years ago Mr. Dudley Sennayake had said as quoted in the Daily Mirror of October 8th 1971: “The Presidential system….would be disastrous.  It would create a tradition of Caesarism. It would concentrate power in a leader and undermine parliament and the structures of political parties”.  This as events have unfolded in the country appear to be prophetic! What this country has faced since the time of the 1st President in 1978 is just what the former Prime Minister foretold.  Chaos and confusion had prevailed along with the breach of governance processes and conventions. 

Perhaps in hindsight it can be claimed that what the country needs is a well drafted constitution to guide the government mechanism on agreed principles. More importantly the parliamentarians and those actively linked to the system must necessarily be schooled in the conventions and practices of parliament to make it work.  They should also be made aware that they have no option but to follow the word and the spirit of the constitution.

Misgovernance

Analysis of how the Executive system works under Maitripala Sirisena sends out vibes of a no go situation from the beginning itself.  Maitripala Sirisena erred from the very outset, and surprisingly escaped without being upbraided by the media or the public. For example soon after his election he appointed defeated candidates at the 2015 elections to the national list raising two issues of paramount importance.  This action of sending rejected candidates to Parliament can be interpreted as action that goes contrary to the wishes of the sovereign people and two, it goes against the constitution where appointments on the national list has been earmarked to be filled by persons with special skills and unrepresented interests. Sri Lanka has always seen change through elections and not by presidential decree.  It is unthinkable that almost the first act of the newly elected President went contrary to principles of good governance- Yahapalanaya – he had promised the people!  Authoritarianism on the rise?  “Sri Lankan democracy was gravely imperiled.” (comments Prof. K.M de Silva.)

Yet another questionable action of the President was the appointment of his brother as the chairman of Telecom. It does smack of a large dose of nepotism!

 One suspects that those who came to right the wrongs of the previous government were themselves not above opprobrium from the people for the same reasons they accused others. This was noted although in the euphoria of victory he escaped chagrin from the public.

There are many more reprehensible actions of the President to be cited.   For example yet another dubious  action of the President that affected sensitivities of many both within the country and internationally is when the Sri Lankan Permanent Representative to the UN was unceremoniously made  to stand down to give his seat in the UN to the offspring of the President who had no claim to that place. In one stroke the status of the permanent representative to the UN became a ‘minor  position’ easy to substitute with anyone and anyhow. Power has corrupted the man and the system. What then had the Rajapakse’s  done which is different to this? What then is all the commotion about? President Sirisena and those who preceded him as Presidents belie the claim of the architects advocating Executive Presidency for stability.  One has only to look at the mess we are in. We have two Prime Ministers and two lots of Cabinet Ministers. Yet the country is seen floundering without a government.

President must rise above parochial interests.

Although voice vote was taken to find out whether Ranil or Mahinda has the support of the majority in Parliament the President has failed to accept the verdict.  Leaders must rise above their personal likes and dislikes so that decisions can be taken on objective grounds and accepted conventions.

Again no responsible Executive should have tolerated the scenes we the people had to witness in parliament when the speaker consequent to the court order summoned the House: The scant respect to the Speaker; the impertinence of an MP sitting on the Speaker’s chair while MPs turned hooligans prevent the entry of the Speaker who ultimately had to be escorted by a posse of police officers into his chamber. Breaking chairs and pulling the public speaker systems (public property) are not to be condoned under any circumstances. Bringing knives and chillie powder to the House are not worthy of elected political leaders. A thug or a terrorist by definition resorts to such action.  Certainly it cannot be the behavior of leaders of the people.

Again, to prorogue parliament suspected to make time to get the numbers necessary, is totally unacceptable. The Supreme Court had given a stay order on this matter. Let us hope fairness and justice will prevail in the verdict to be given later in the first week of next month. We need neutrality to proceed from this very corrupted scenario. 

19th Amendment

While questioning the need for the institution of an Executive President the question arises as to how the mandate to do away with the Presidential system given by the people in 2015 was dealt with. Since those in favor of abolishing the Executive Presidency did not have sufficient numbers in Parliament they had to be satisfied with reducing the powers of the President by introducing the said reduction through an amendment to the Constitution, namely the 19th Amendment. Although it seemed an acceptable a solution under the circumstances, in hindsight it is clear that an irresponsible President can still play havoc with the constitutional process despite his powers being clipped. The way political power has been played out by President Sirisena validates this charge.

Courts act as adjudicators in the crisis

The country has to be thankful for the separation of powers proviso in the Constitution that secures the independence of the judiciary where disputed constitutional issues can be referred to. The country is waiting with abated breadth for the verdict from the Supreme Court.

President and relations with his coalition partner-A question of ethics

Reference is frequently made to the controversial attitude of the President towards his major partner in government.  First and foremost the basic principles behind an agreement to work together had not been comprehensively grasped by the President and his advisors.  Instead, the President carried on the traditional enmity of the SLFP and the UNP political party ideology, although over a period of time many of the features in the political agenda of the two parties have seen an overlap and more often than not become reconcilable.  On many policy perspectives they converge and can also be adjusted to converge.  Unfortunately the party affiliation and loyalties became dominant for the President, especially since he was conferred the mantle of chairmanship of the SLFP by virtue of his election as President.  He was not expected to carry the mantle of the SLFP since he came out as a lone ‘knight’ and rebelled against his party leader. He was at the time conferred ‘deleted’ from the membership of the SLFP.  Consequently, he was under no compulsion to fall for the bait of the offer of chairmanship of the party to him. It is very likely at this point that in the ‘muddle’ regarding his loyalty to the party, he fails to find common ground between his commitment to the party and that of his obligation to his UNP partners. Having failed to understand the distinction he remains a political partisan, and as happened political decisions are taken with impunity.

Decorum in the House

 It would have been to the President’s credit if he had intervened to make a statement condemning the behavior of some of the members of the Legislature while supporting the Speaker’s right to be independent without criticizing him as being a lackey of the UNP or suspecting him of misreading the constitution. That would be the leadership expected from a President.

 It is also a sad indictment on the purported government to accuse the speaker of partisanship and call him names like ‘Karumaya’ which is distasteful under any circumstances and should not be the behavior of political leaders. The least the leader of the purported government could have done is to admonish his MPs for their very poor show in the House.   That was not to be.

It is now necessary for the nation to await the intervention of the Supreme Court for a resolution of the present cathartic situation engineered by one man, the President.

Personal preference should not influence government decisions.

It seems an insult to the citizens of this country to be told that the President dismissed the PM because he had disagreements with him. In one’s working life people are obliged to work with many we don’t personally like. To like or not to like is not a choice available to a Head of government.  The quality of leadership should be such that such irritations have to be ignored to carry on the work. It befits one to question how conducive it is to appoint the man he abandoned to defeat in the political campaign because he was authoritarian, corrupt and prone to be lawless.

The President is on record saying that he will never appoint Mahinda Rajapakse as Prime Minister ever even as he says now of Ranil Wickremasinghe. Could it be then assumed that his attitude to Ranil Wickremasinghe is also subject to change?

 A question of ethics

Maitripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremasinghe came together from opposing camps to fulfill a common objective; that is, to defeat an authoritarian and corrupt regime that was using their political power to accumulate more and more wealth for themselves. They were successful in defeating an establishment considered indefatigable. Having set the government in place before long the President became highly critical of the Prime Minister and finally dismissed him. The alternative candidate he picked up to the consternation of all was Mahinda Rajapakse. There are two issues here. One is that how could the President choose as Prime Minister one whom he found fault on all counts of a functioning democracy. How can the President change his views on the man he thought not fit to be permitted to enter the political fray. What provoked the change of heart is a very disturbing question?

Two, the President owes a debt of gratitude to the UNP membership and their leader Ranil Wickremasinghe for the support they extended which made it possible for Maitripala Sirisena to reach the highest peak in power. Isn’t there a sense of gratitude one owes to one’s benefactor. Do the President and his advisors suffer from amnesia? It is the much touted culture of this island that a good deed done should always be reciprocated even in a small way. How can the President forget the goodwill he owes the PM raised as we are made to believe in the Buddhist culture?