Columns

Sri Lanka today stands at a critical juncture. After decades of political instability, economic crises, and institutional decay, the nation finally has an opportunity to break from a destructive past and chart a new course. At the heart of this opportunity lies the long-standing demand for constitutional reform, particularly the abolition of the Executive Presidency—a system widely recognised as the root cause of many of Sri Lanka’s governance failures.  

Installed through the 1978 Constitution by the United National Party (UNP) under President J.R. Jayewardene, the Executive Presidency has entrenched a culture of authoritarianism and eroded the democratic fabric of the state. It has centralised power in an individual rather than in institutions, allowing successive presidents to bypass checks and balances and accumulate enormous control over the legislature, judiciary, and the public service. That Sri Lanka is a textbook case of democratic decay is in large part due to this office.

Now, with a reformist government led by the National People’s Power (NPP) and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the time has come to take decisive action. Promises have been made. A national consensus already exists. But eight months into its term, the NPP-led administration is yet to initiate a credible process of constitutional reform. This delay risks not only public disillusionment but also the squandering of a rare opportunity to end a system that has long outlived its legitimacy.

A system condemned by its own architects

It is worth revisiting the origins of the Executive Presidency to understand its undemocratic nature. During the drafting of the First Republican Constitution in 1971–72, J.R. Jayewardene—then Leader of the Opposition—proposed a presidential model. Yet Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike firmly rejected the proposal, despite knowing she would have been the first to benefit by the excessive powers that an Executive President would be able to exercise. Her principled opposition was rooted in the understanding that such concentration of power was unsuitable for a country like Sri Lanka.

Subsequently, the United National Party(UNP) under Jayewardene, enacted the 1978 Constitution and created the Executive Presidency. But in the years that followed, many within the UNP came to regret its introduction. The experiment had turned into a permanent distortion of democratic governance.

Leftist stalwarts Dr. N.M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva warned early on of the dangers of unchecked executive power: authoritarianism, the marginalisation of minorities, and the weakening of Parliament. Their warnings have proven prophetic. The Executive Presidency not only facilitated abuses of power but also deepened ethnic divisions, contributed to the prolongation of the civil war, and enabled a style of governance that has consistently undermined democratic institutions.

Power consolidation and
governance failure

The most devastating legacy of the Executive Presidency has been the systematic concentration of power. Successive presidents have used their position to weaken Parliament, manipulate the judiciary, politicise independent commissions, and militarize the public sphere.

Even well-intentioned constitutional amendments—like the 17th, 19th, and most recently the 21st—offered only partial or temporary relief. These gains were repeatedly undone by self-serving counter-amendments like the 18th and 20th, which brazenly reinstated unchecked presidential powers.

Under this system, public accountability has all but disappeared, and democratic participation has become a formality, rather than a genuine mechanism of governance. The result is a country lurching from crisis to crisis—culminating in the 2022 economic collapse, sovereign default, and the historic Aragalaya protests that forced a sitting president to flee the country.

One of the more tragic ironies in Sri Lanka’s political history is that nearly every major party has called for the abolition of the Executive Presidency at some point—including the SLFP, JVP, TNA, Muslim parties, and now the NPP. Yet, every time a party comes into power, constitutional reform is conveniently postponed.

This disturbing trend has re-emerged under the current administration. including Sunil Handunnetti NPP leaders, , clearly stated after the 2024 presidential election that Anura Kumara Dissanayake would be Sri Lanka’s last executive president. Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya last week reiterated in Parliament that a new Constitution is essential and that the Executive Presidency would be abolished before the government’s term ends.

But nine months in, there has been no roadmap, no white paper, no constitutional committee, and no draft. Despite the Prime Minister’s expressed commitment to an inclusive, consultative process involving experts and citizen groups, the lack of visible progress has justifiably raised public concern.

Is the NPP merely buying time, or has it grown too comfortable with the very powers it pledged to dismantle?

A democratic path forward

For those genuinely committed to democratic reform, there is a principled and pragmatic solution: initiate the process now, but make the reforms effective after the end of the current president’s term.

This approach would allow for: A comprehensive consultative process, Preservation of political stability during the transition, and A reaffirmation of the NPP’s moral authority and reformist credentials.

The new constitution can include a parliamentary system of governance, strong independent commissions, devolution of power to the provinces, and judicial reforms—all rooted in democratic accountability and citizen participation.

Civil society, legal experts, political parties, and international partners must be part of this process. Transparency and public engagement will be crucial to winning the trust of a population that has grown weary of empty promises.

The role of the opposition and civil society

The responsibility to push for reform does not rest with the government alone. The Opposition must keep this issue alive by pressing the government in Parliament and demanding periodic progress updates. Civil society must resume its advocacy with vigor, and the media must continue to spotlight delays and inconsistencies.

One suggestion would be for the opposition to formally raise the issue every quarter in Parliament, compelling the government to publicly disclose what measures it has taken and the expected timeline for reform. This will ensure that the government remains accountable and that the matter does not slip through the cracks.

A historic moment that must not be missed

The Executive Presidency is not simply a flawed institution—it is the embodiment of a political culture that has crippled Sri Lanka’s potential. Every major calamity the country has endured—ethnic conflict, economic disaster, human rights abuses—has been exacerbated by the unchecked power of this office.

The current moment offers a rare chance to break the cycle. If the NPP squanders this opportunity, it risks becoming yet another party that talked about reform but failed to deliver. The public is watching, the clock is ticking—and history will judge.

If the government truly believes that the Executive Presidency is a relic of authoritarianism and that a more democratic Sri Lanka is possible, it must act now. Delaying constitutional reform only emboldens those who benefit from centralised power and disillusions a public that has already waited too long.

The Executive Presidency must go. There is no better time to begin its abolition than now

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)