Plus

Plus

Parliamentary & Presidential systems
The contrasts
By J. Augustine Pereira
Since the achievement of independence in 1948, Sri Lanka had at first a Parliamentary system of government based on the Westminster model. Then in 1978, she adopted the Executive Presidential system. A comparison makes an interesting study.

The Parliamentary system which was introduced after the British occupation of the country was modelled on the British Parliament. In the Parliamentary system, the most important political office is that of the citizen, and power which is voted by the citizens is exercised by Parliament consisting of their representatives.

The supremacy of Parliament is the basis of this system, in which the members of the Executive branch of the government are selected from the representatives voted by the electorate into Parliament. The success of the Parliamentary system depends, therefore, on the even balancing of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister who is the Chief Executive and the Cabinet of Ministers are Members of Parliament and answerable to Parliament.

Under the Presidential system, the Executive President is elected by the people at a separate election and is not a Member of Parliament. He or she, strictly speaking, is not answerable to Parliament for his/her action, official or otherwise. The Executive President is the head of the Cabinet and may hold more than one portfolio. In the People's Alliance Government from 1994 to November 2001, the President held the portfolios of Finance, Buddha Sasana, Policy Planning, Ethnic Affairs and National Integration and Defence.

Under the 1978 Constitution, the President can also summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. However, when a motion of impeachment is pending against him/her he/she cannot dissolve Parliament. The President wields considerable power and may continue in power notwithstanding the dissolution of Parliament. Parliament can remove the President from a portfolio held by him/her only by way of an impeachment motion which is complicated and cumbersome. In fact, it could be said that removing the President in this manner is almost an impossibility.

Under the Parliamentary system, the Presidency is a ceremonial office and the President will take on decision-making powers only in the event of a dissolution of Parliament, the appointment of a new Cabinet or the sudden death of the Prime Minister.

The Executive President under the present Constitution is largely independent of the legislature. Though legislation can be passed only after sending it through Parliament, under the Parliamentary system, under the Presidential system, the President can bypass Parliament and legislate through a referendum.

Another feature of the Executive Presidency is that the President can be from one party while the Cabinet could be from another party which holds a majority in Parliament. In fact, this situation was experienced after the general election of 1994 till the Presidential election was held. Currently too, there is a similar situation.

Under the Presidential system, the President enjoys total immunity from legal action.
The question which has baffled generations of political thinkers is exactly where political power should lie. Under the Parliamentary system, political power is broadbased and the most important factor is the right of the people. Under the Presidential system, the basic factor is the government and the extent of its powers.

The Presidential system was introduced to ensure political stability, with a total different political culture, where the MP has no identity apart from his party. The party Whip wields considerable power on the official conduct of an MP and should an MP vote against his party, he runs the risk of losing his seat if he is expelled from his party.

In the Parliamentary system, the MP could vote according to his conscience and even change parties.

Back to Plus