brand logo

Is the Executive Presidency necessary for economic revival?

20 Jul 2022

  • Public torn between abolition, retention of powers for unpopular and independent decisions during crisis, and holding such powers to account with governance structures 
BY Sumudu Chamara It is for the first time that Sri Lanka will see the election of an interim President by Members of Parliament (MPs) today (20), and it is the first election being held with Sri Lanka experiencing its worst economic crisis since independence. All three candidates – Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Dullas Alahapperuma, and National People’s Power (NPP) Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake – are familiar faces who have been in politics for decades, and the country has some understanding of their capabilities and conduct. Above all else, the new President would be expected to introduce and support economic and policy reforms to pull the country out of the economic abyss. Many question what Wickremesinghe could bring to the table that he could not in his previous stints as the Prime Minister, while some claim that Dissanayake should be given an opportunity to run the country. There is also discussion about Alahapperuma in the political arena, and what he could achieve with the backing of the main opposition the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB). Executive powers vested in the President have been a topic that comes up in almost every discussion about the President, including in the ongoing discourse on re-electing an interim President. While many have advocated for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, some also think that the President having Executive powers is necessary to take and implement important decisions.  Role of President’s Executive powers in reviving economy  Whether the interim President will or should abolish the Executive Presidency is a concern at present, and the people have diverse opinions in that connection. According to some who spoke with The Morning, in this time of political, economic, and social instability, the President having powers to act independently could be considerably beneficial until these crises are dealt with. Thirty-four-year-old private sector worker Saranaga Thilanka who described himself as a “victim of unwise choices” in reference to him voting for former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last Presidential Election, was of the opinion that what should happen is not the abolishing of the Executive Presidency, but making sure that those powers are given to the right leaders.  He added: “I voted for Rajapaksa thinking that he would use this power to take direct, stringent, and brave decisions for the people, which I believe the former United National Front (UNF)-led Government could not do. However, Rajapaksa proved to be incompetent in doing that. Executive powers are not to blame for this, but it is the people who gave such powers to politicians who do not know how to employ them to serve the people, that are to blame.”  Amidst the current political instability, he opined, the President having Executive powers is necessary. “Sri Lanka’s political culture has weakened. All parties have divided into various factions, while more groups have emerged with their own agendas to benefit from the current situation. Political deals are everywhere. Regardless of who becomes the President, he would not be able to expect much support from the Parliament, or even from his own party. However, this is a time when the support of all parties should be extended to the President. In this context, it is crucial that the President has the powers to take the right decisions by himself, without having to rely on the support of other political parties, and that is why the Executive Presidency should remain. The President should have the powers needed in order to make the changes that he is expected to make.” In response to the question of whether such powers, or the exercise of Executive powers in the manner he described, could be dangerous to a democracy, he said that the people should make sure that those powers are not misused. “Rajapaksa tried to do that. He took arbitrary and shortsighted decisions which were detrimental to the country. The moment the people realised that, they took to the streets and sent him home,” he noted. Twenty-seven-year-old electrician Yasith Samaranayake (name changed on request), also expressed similar opinions about the necessity to keep the Executive Presidency. He said that tough decisions may have to be taken to change the country’s dire economic situation, for which he said that the President should have the necessary Executive powers.  “The country’s situation is not what it was several months ago. The economy needs rapid and massive change, in order to reverse the economic decline that we are experiencing. To make such changes, it is necessary to have a President who can take decisions without being influenced by other politicians. If an all-party Government is formed, parties are likely to present various proposals with various intentions, and therefore, the President should have the Executive powers to take stringent decisions with regard to the best solutions to the economic crisis.” However, Samaranayake said that Executive powers should be abolished at some point in the future, preferably once the economic crisis is dealt with. He added: “In the long run, these Executive powers can create dictators. We all have seen what it did to the country and our leaders during the past few decades. As a matter of fact, the Executive Presidency is one of the reasons that led to this economic crisis. Leaders were blinded by their powers and took selfish decisions. Therefore, although I think that the President should have Executive powers at this particular moment, they have to be abolished when they are not necessary anymore. I think that whoever becomes the President, he should have the ability to do that, and the others in the Parliament should push for the same.”  Transparency and honesty of interim President   However, some are of the opinion that the Executive Presidency should be abolished as soon as possible, and that it should be one of the main duties of the new President. They opined that the prevailing economic crisis is a good example of the damages that the Executive Presidency can cause.  “If Sri Lanka does not understand the necessity of doing away with the Executive Presidency now, it will never understand it,” 36-year-old businessman K.R. Nadeesh Silva said, adding that the former President Rajapaksa’s arbitrary decisions, which were taken using Executive powers, led to the prevailing situation. He said that the decision to introduce a 100% organic fertiliser policy hastily and massive tax rate cuts in 2019 are examples. “Having in place an Executive President is a challenge to the country’s law and order too. We all know about the allegations against Rajapaksa. Despite there being a number of court cases and investigations against him, the law could not be implemented against Rajapaksa, because he was entitled to immunity as the Executive President. It is like a licence to be a criminal. When everyone else in the country is accountable for their actions, including offences, whoever holds the Executive Presidency can easily do whatever they want and get away with it. I do not understand why some people still do not like to change this culture.”  He further opined that having an Executive President prevents the country from being governed by a transparent and honest leader, adding that had Rajapaksa not been the Executive President, perhaps, it would have been possible to detain him in the country to answer the people’s questions regarding his wrongdoings.  “As long as the Executive Presidency remains in Sri Lanka, we would not be able to stop Heads of State from becoming insensitive dictators. The best example is how every President who came to power promising to abolish the Executive Presidency failed to do that. Once they realize what they can do with those powers with no consequences, they become too greedy and corrupt.” He stressed that at a time the country demands changes to Sri Lanka’s political culture, abolishing the Executive Presidency should be a priority. Executive powers within limits  Some who spoke about this matter were of the opinion that Sri Lanka should stop the practice of relying on and giving excessive powers to politicians. Instead of that, governing structures that make it impossible for politicians to have or exercise excessive powers should be in place, according to them.  In this regard, 60-year-old retired public sector official A.S.C. Samaradiwakara said: “We are still stuck in discussing how much powers should be given to politicians and how to monitor it, when other countries have started relying on governing structures. Abolishing the Executive Presidency is necessary. However, it is merely a first step. The next step should be developing governing structures, policies, and laws that make it impossible or at least extremely difficult for politicians to misuse or have excessive powers.”  She opined that doing so will also reduce the need to change politicians frequently. “We want to overthrow the Government and the politicians whenever we realise that they are not doing their job. That is because we rely on politicians, because we do not have a system to rely on. For example, if there was a proper way to stop the Rajapaksa brothers’-led Governments from taking foreign loans unnecessarily, we could have stopped it while they were in power without having to seek a new Government. However, the most important thing is that these laws and policies should be extremely effective and fully enforceable without being affected by politicians”.  “It is the limits of Executive powers that we should be concerned about,” she said, opining that even if the Executive Presidency remained, if there were strict limitations as to the exercise of those powers, they would not be abused. MPs are to elect a new President for the interim Government today. However, unlike in previous cases, this time, the President is taking a responsibility that determines both his and the country’s future. Therefore, the chance to take direct and prudent decisions is necessary, as claimed by some who spoke with The Morning. However, to what extent and in what ways the Executive powers are beneficial or detrimental in making those decisions should receive more attention.   


More News..