Sri Lanka’s Executive Presidency, introduced by President Jayewardene in 1978, sounded a death knell for the democracy which Sri Lanka enjoyed for three decades, since its Independence in 1948. It has undermined the division of powers, rule of law, judicial independence, independent commissions, checks and balances, etc. The 18th and 20th Amendments (adopted respectively in 2010 and 2021) have made the situation worse. 

We are now hearing a clarion call for the restoration of parliamentary democracy. The President, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, other political leaders, as well as the Galle Face youth, civil society organisations, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and human rights organisations have agreed, in principle, to the proposed 21st Amendment. 

Advertisement

At the same time, some nationalists have struck a discordant note. They want the President to retain the power to hold ministerial portfolios, especially that of the Defence Ministry, appoint and remove the Prime Minister and ministers and dissolve Parliament. 

“No problem can be solved by the same kind of thinking that created it,” said Einstein. If we created a problem through an undemocratic way of thinking, then we cannot find a solution through the same way of thinking. If the crisis was caused by autocratic policies, then we cannot resolve it through the same kind of policies. The political and economic crises created by the Executive Presidential actions, cannot be addressed by the same kind of actions. 

Parliamentary Democracy is being proposed by most of the stakeholders in preference to the Executive Presidency as a paradigm shift, laying down a basis for the process of decision-making towards problem-solving. It is not a solution per se to the current crisis or any other crisis, but just a decision-making process aimed at problem-solving. 

“Extreme nationalists believe that it (Executive Presidency) ensures Sinhala Buddhist dominance,” says Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne. In their view, parliamentary democracy can endanger the unitary statehood, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, but the Executive Presidency can neutralize the risk of Provincial Councils seceding from Sri Lanka. 

In fact, a parliamentary democratic constitution can be equipped with such provisions, as already exist- ing in the Indian Constitution, for the Central Government to take action against secession. Dr Wickramaratne proposes that “the President be empowered to intervene after consultation with the Prime Minister, instead of on the advice of the latter, as an exception to the rule in a Parliamentary form of government. Such intervention should be approved by Parliament, as is the case of a proclamation of emergency.” 

It is also claimed that the Executive Presidency is essential to ensure political stability and national security. This is self-contradictory, given the unprecedented political and economic instability we are experiencing, under the existing Executive Presidency, whereas Sri Lanka had enjoyed a robust political and economic stability under Parliamentary Democracy for three decades since Independence. 

Just another criticism is that a person, like Ranil Wickremesinghe, not popularly elected, can become Prime Minister and wield executive power. Yes, but such a person must subsequently prove that he or she commands a majority in Parliament, which is the touchstone for Parliamentary Democracy. This has happened before in Sri Lanka and India. Prime Ministers Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Indira Gandhi, who were initially nominated members of the Second Chamber, proved their majorities in Parliament subsequently. The advocates of Executive Presidency resent the bedrock of Parliamentary Democracy, consisting of a Constitutional Council, separation of powers, checks and balances, independent commissions, rule of law, human rights, etc. They do not appreciate the significance of Prime Ministers Dudley Senanayaka and Sirimavo Bandaranaike resigning, respectively in 1960 and 1964, after losing the vote on the Throne Speech. 

Those who are against Parliamentary Democracy have become part of the problem, rather than the solution, and therefore lost any say in the matter at issue before us. Whatever majority they claim, enjoy or concoct in Parliament, has already lost its legitimacy, given the country-wide demand for the replacement of the Executive Presidency.