Though abolition of the executive presidency is no longer top of the charts on election platforms as it was during the past 30 years, the reckless, arbitrary, and unlawful actions of those who have held that office during the past decade and the profound consequences of those actions should in fact validate the call for abolition more than ever before at the upcoming Presidential Election. However, with the election now just weeks away, thus far, only one mainstream candidate among the record 39 in the fray has thought it fit to make the abolition pledge anew.
It was back in 1994 that a presidential hopeful first promised to abolish the all-powerful executive presidency. Three decades later, with most of the nation’s current woes stemming from the use and abuse of that office over the years, it so happens that the only candidates pledging abolition of the post are the current Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National People’s Power. One cannot fault the people for being sceptical of yet another pledge, having been serially duped by every presidential candidate-turned-president since 1994, but the crux of the matter is that the position continues to cause more harm than good to the nation.
The actions of the incumbent serve to underline the importance of addressing this issue sooner than later given the prospect of it resting in the hands of an individual unsuited for the post, as warned at the time of its creation by the late Dr. Colvin R. de Silva. The Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) Leader asked that very pertinent question from the creator of the post, the late J.R. Jayewardene, who dismissed the concern at the time, but it is de Silva who appears to be having the last say on the matter from up yonder, going by the actions of those who have held the post in the recent past – including the incumbent, who appears determined to outdo the others in the quest for infamy.
Last week’s historic Supreme Court judgment saw a sitting president yet again violating the fundamental rights of the people. While there have been several instances when Supreme Court directives have gone unheeded by former presidents, the incumbent has outdone all with the court ruling that he had arbitrarily and unlawfully infringed on the fundamental rights of the people by not conducting the Local Government Elections in March last year.
Further, the court also ruled that as Finance Minister, he had not fully appraised the Cabinet of Ministers on the effects of restricting expenditure on the Local Government Elections, when seeking approval for the same. He is also accused of misleading Parliament by claiming that there was no necessity to hold the election. Meanwhile the Supreme Court in its ruling ordered the Election Commission to conduct the elections at the earliest possible, sending a powerful message to the bureaucracy that it must follow the law and not political diktat. The President’s response to the verdict has once again been defiance, stating that he was “not sorry” for his action.
The actions of the incumbent continue to underline the fact as to why the executive presidency is unsuitable for Sri Lanka. Besides, all three presidents who have held office in the past decade have been found guilty of abusing that office, two by the Supreme Court and one by the court of the people, causing him to flee the country. The reckless and arbitrary actions of these three over the course of the past few years have cast a black mark on the nation and its democratic credentials.
Back in 2018, President Maithripala Sirisena arbitrarily and recklessly dismissed the then Government elected by the people and installed one that had been rejected by the people simply because he “could not work with the Prime Minister (PM)”. When asked why, Sirisena’s reply was that the chemistry between the two was not right. Therefore, his solution was to send the PM and his Government home and install the Opposition Leader as PM, abusing outright the authority of his office.
The status quo prevailed for 52 days until the Supreme Court ruled that Sirisena’s action was illegal and violated the people’s fundamental rights. By way of remedy, the court ordered immediate restoration of the status quo ante. However, no punishment ensued even after Sirisena lost his presidential immunity for his reckless and arbitrary action, which has been described as having laid the foundation for the nation’s subsequent woes, most notably the Easter Sunday terror attacks.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa took off where Sirisena left off by even instructing State officials that his mere word was law and that there was no need for official circulars. His subsequent arbitrary and reckless actions, starting from the slashing of personal and corporate taxes, to a skewed monetary policy that overshadowed the operations of the Central Bank, to a disastrous agriculture policy and many other such decisions with little or no professional oversight are now the stuff of notoriety. The result was a self-inflicted economic disaster. What happened thereafter is now history.
While there is no argument over the fact that a combination of reasons and circumstances led to Sri Lanka’s most debilitating economic crisis, the undeniable fact is that it is the spark caused by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s reckless and arbitrary action that led to the mighty fire that manifested in the form of an economic crisis leading to bankruptcy.
But literally having been to hell and back for the sake of a fresh start and clean-up of corruption-riddled government, the nation expected more from the interim Executive than mere availability of essentials. Whether he has delivered on that or not is for the people to decide on 21 September, but what he cannot shake off or camouflage is the black mark he has accrued to himself for the lack of respect to the highest court in the land.
Continued defiance of Supreme Court rulings by the first citizen is not without consequence; it is bound to have a cascading effect on law-abiding society. Besides, instead of cleaning up government by closing the ‘saloon door’ to those tainted with corruption allegations and acting against a lengthening list of corruption allegations, the latest being the visa issue, there appears to be a serious miscalculation of the people’s demands that still stand valid from two years ago.
The only reason that Sri Lanka did not descend to the status of a Lebanon or Venezuela consequent to the economic crisis is due to the immense respect that people have for the law. If that respect is eroded due to the actions of those holding high office, then those individuals are compromising not only their own fate but also that of the nation. The single biggest ingredient of Lee Kuan Yew’s recipe for Singapore’s success was his unwavering commitment to the rule of law – something that is now ingrained in that nation from the top downwards.
It goes without saying that every executive action in a struggling and bankrupt economy such as Sri Lanka’s must necessarily inspire confidence both locally and in particular externally for the simple reason that the country desperately needs and depends on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in order to alleviate its current circumstances, essentially caused by the lack of it. In that regard, it is of paramount importance that confidence is not diminished in the rule of law which is usually requirement number one on any credible investor’s conformity list.
However, when contrary to all accepted norms, those vested with the duty to safeguard the rights of the people are in fact the ones infringing them, the damage caused to years of painstaking nation-branding is destroyed overnight, as this nation continues to find out the hard way.
Elections and the rule of law are cornerstones of democracy. Therefore, no politician has the right to do away with elections on the pretext of them being inconvenient. Interestingly, the original excuse given for postponement of the 2023 Local Government Polls was the lack of funds, but now the Executive says that holding elections would have shifted focus from other matters. The triviality associated with such a profound matter as seeking the people’s mandate is astounding. It once again leads to the three-decade-old question of the viability of vesting so much executive authority in one individual. Therefore, 21 September will not only decide who wins but also the fate of the executive presidency.