Sunday Times 2
Can any kind of constitution survive Lanka’s politicians?
Very many politicians of the post-Independence era till 1977 saw the Westminster Parliamentary system of governance under the Soulbury Constitution as a leisurely game of tennis played by two opposing sides with the ball being flicked from one court to the other with little else happening. Governments changed but the game went on.
It was J.R. Jayewardene (JRJ) after his unprecedented sweep of the 1977 polls who changed the constitution to a presidential system of government that bestowed wide powers to an executive president over parliament.
Executive presidency opposed
Many objected to the executive presidential mode of governance. Even the Marxists whose sacred texts committed them to the ‘burial of the capitalist system’ and the establishment of the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, feared the move. Whether they feared the executive presidency or President Jayewardene per se or both is not certain, but other main political leaders, too, objected. Sirima Bandaranaike who previously had a two-third parliamentary majority together with her Marxist allies, objected. In the name of socialism, she had driven her political juggernaut over most privately owned enterprises, nationalising major commercial, industrial and agricultural establishments, even the modest Buhari Hotel that provided excellent Biriyani. It was a dictatorship of a two-third majority.
Even in the ranks of Jayewardene’s government, there was much griping with Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa complaining that he did not ‘even have the powers of a government peon’. But JRJ had his way and transformed the ‘Mixed Socialist Economy’ of Bandaranaike into an Open Economy. He was ahead of his times, even India shifting its Nehruvian Socialist Economy to an Open Economy ten years later.
JRJ’s successor, Premadasa, once he was the president found presidential power much useful and also delightful in contrast to ‘the power of a peon’. He couldn’t have held office without executive presidential power with two insurrections in the north and the south threatening him at the same time. His performance was described by his own colleagues as a ‘One Man Show’ using powers of the executive presidency.
Liberal socialist, Chandrika Bandaranaike followed, pledging to abolish the executive presidency, but was executive president for two terms, sacking Ranil Wickremesinghe, the prime minister using power of the executive president although he held a majority in parliament. Mahinda Rajapaksa, who also vowed to rid the country of the executive presidency, not only ruled for two terms as executive president but also did away with the constitutional provision of limiting the office of president for two terms, for him to continue as executive president for life, if re-elected.
It is obvious that politicians, while tongue-lashing the office of executive president to mislead the gullible masses, once in power found it to be an effective lash to whip dissenters into line and abuse their fundamental rights. Much was achieved with powers of the executive presidency such as by JRJ for development projects and all other presidents used it for fighting the 30-years of terrorism. Thus, is criticism of the executive presidency a fig leaf to cover the abuse of executive presidential powers for personal gain?
The more important question is: Can any kind of constitution survive the conduct of Sri Lankan politicians who misuse constitutional powers to wreck fundamental provisions of the constitution? Could a constitution, be it of the Westminster kind, the Donoughmore variety, Sirima Bandaranaike- Colvin R de Silva type or the J.R. Jayewardene constitution, withstand assaults on basic constitutional provisions by corrupt scheming politicians to achieve their own political ends? Can pure parliamentary governance stop the rot?
The outstanding example is the move by President Maithripala Sirisena to sack his own prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appoint Wickremesinghe’s opponent as the prime minister and the scenes that followed. For consecutive days, Opposition members gave the most telling display of vulgarity and thuggery.
The Supreme Court order restored sense and sanity in the political hierarchy starting from the president.
A notable fact was that party leaders, whose members had taken the role of street thugs, particularly the Opposition members, did nothing to stop this mayhem in the honoured chamber. The strategy behind this parliamentary coup, it is now virtually admitted, was based on ‘buying MPs’ — which failed. Can any constitutional provision prevent such abuse and corruption?
Leaders and followers
This brings us to leaders and followers in the politics of Lanka. At opportunistic moments, our leaders tend to follow the mob rather than lead and control them, while in normal times they take on the role of Arahats preaching high morality. This dual role of leadership is more akin to that of a Godfather of a Mafia than an Arahat.
With the presidential election round the corner and calls being made for a new constitution what are the leading contenders’ proposals? The basic principle of the constitution, under which the Rajapaksa regime functioned, was one family rule. Family members replaced the role of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary as in democratic constitutions. Together they controlled a major proportion of the country’s financial resources.
Gotabaya, the presidential candidate for the Pohottuwa, has aired his plans for governance through his newly created ‘think tanks’ packed with loyalists. But can he offer a different constitution devoid of family members in key positions that led to widespread nepotism and the debacle of the earlier family regime?
Sajith Premadasa has been named as UNPs presidential candidate as this column is being written. He has yet to outline his system of governance.
He has little time left to announce his constitutional proposals, but he should do it within days.