There was a period when the abolition of the executive presidential system was a key issue at Presidential Elections. However, such a situation cannot be expected to arise again. 

The politicians who promised to abolish the executive presidency have not only failed to do so after winning the election and assuming office as president, but have also taken action to increase their powers. Therefore, the reality is that people are not going to trust politicians who make such promises again.

However, now that the Presidential Election campaigns are heating up, talks of the abolition of the executive presidency have resumed. Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Leader Sajith Premadasa and National People’s Power (NPP) Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake have promised on election platforms last week that if they win the Presidential Election and come to power, they will abolish the presidential system and bring back the parliamentary system. 

Pointing out that Premadasa had announced the abolition of the executive presidency the day after they made such a promise, NPP politicians claimed that they were the trendsetters of Sri Lankan politics. 

RW vs. the executive presidency

Three months ago, President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who addressed a group of young legal professionals at the Presidential Secretariat, said that none of the aspiring candidates for the Presidential Election had declared their intention to abolish the executive powers of the presidency. There was no doubt that the President’s comment was aimed at Premadasa and Dissanayake, who had started campaigning for the election very much earlier. 

Now that both have announced their position on the abolition of the executive presidency, the question arises as to what Wickremesinghe – the other main candidate – will do. Even if the main candidates promise to abolish the executive presidency in their manifestos, it certainly cannot be expected that the people will vote for it this time. 

As for President Wickremesinghe, although he supported the Opposition’s common candidates who promised during two previous Presidential Elections to abolish the presidential system, he was not sincerely inclined to do so. Wickremesinghe expressed his position on the future of the executive presidency when he ceremoniously opened the new session of Parliament for the first time two years ago and delivered the Government’s policy statement. It is necessary at this point to recall it.

He announced that he would hand over the responsibility of reaching a consensus on whether or not to abolish the executive presidency to the People’s Council, which he intended to appoint in due course. But not only was the People’s Council never formed, he mostly avoided talking about the abolition of the executive presidency thereafter. 

If Wickremesinghe really wanted to abolish the executive presidency, he could have negotiated with the opposing parties in the immediate aftermath of the ‘Aragalaya’ people’s uprising and reached a consensus. That opportune moment, when there was widespread popular support for the abolition of the executive presidency, was deliberately missed. 

It is evident from some of his speeches that the President is now under the impression that the abolition of the executive presidency is not an important issue in the current situation. 

Since many arguments have been made over a prolonged period about the need to abolish the executive presidency, it is unnecessary to repeat them here. But if anyone doubts this, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s two-and-a-half-year rule and Wickremesinghe’s last two years of rule are clear evidence that the executive presidency should no longer remain. 

The President is asking the people to vote for him and make him president again in order to continue the economic restructuring measures carried out with the help of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the country’s recovery from the economic downturn. But he should also reflect on the fact that many laws were brought in during his short tenure that seriously affected the democratic rights of the people. He also has a strained relationship with the Judiciary.

The faltering of politicians  

If the people were satisfied with economic development alone, former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina would not have met the fate of having to flee the country and take refuge in neighbouring India. 

As for Premadasa and Dissanayake, they are of the position that the responsibility of abolishing the executive presidency lies with the next parliament elected with the new mandate of the people. They have repeatedly expressed this position during recent attempts by the Wickremesinghe administration to introduce some constitutional amendments. 

They are now saying that they will abolish the executive presidency if they come to power. They are also aware that this is an issue that can be used against the President, who is uninterested in abolition. It appears unlikely that Wickremesinghe will promise to abolish the executive presidency. It is reliably learnt that he said as much during a meeting with some civil society leaders last week.

Three months ago, former Speaker of Parliament Karu Jayasuriya requested that the candidates contesting the Presidential Election disclose their position on the abolition of the executive presidency in their election manifestos. But no prominent politicians appear to have taken serious note of this and responded. Jayasuriya had also asked that the candidates who promised to abolish the executive presidency mention the time limit in their manifesto. 

While other politicians have been faltering, Jayasuriya has consistently taken a firm stance on the matter. He is not a politician now; he took over the leadership of the National Movement  for Social Justice after the demise of its Founder Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera some years ago. 

Sobitha Thera, who fought hard for the abolition of the executive presidency, breathed his last as a worried man. This was because the politicians who promised him that they would abolish the executive presidency failed to keep their promise after winning elections and coming to power. 

Chasing a mirage

Meanwhile, last week, 83 prominent academics and political and civil society activists together with eight civil society organisations issued a statement demanding that all presidential candidates express commitment to abolishing the executive presidency within one year after the next Parliamentary Elections.

“The experience of 46 years with that executive presidency has shown that none of the stated objectives for the same have been achieved. The executive presidency has not had much impact on economic development also. With the deepening of the ethnic crisis, our political system has often come under crisis. 

“Presidentialism has brought undesirable consequences due to lack of accountability. It has promoted authoritarianism, corruption, and incompetence to the detriment of the common good of all Sri Lankans. 

“People have clearly seen the connection between the executive presidency and the causes of misrule and economic decline in recent times. That is why they demanded system change during the 2022 ‘Aragalaya’ uprising. So, the first step to that system change could be the abolition of the executive presidential system,” their statement said. 

Politicians have no problem in making promises about the abolition of the executive presidency. However, the problem for the people of Sri Lanka is to find a leader with political probity who can truly abolish the much-maligned executive presidency after winning the election.

It seems that the demand for the abolition of the executive presidency will remain a topic of political discussion forever. Hoping to get rid of it is akin to chasing a mirage.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)