PR system and executive presidency

The bane of Sri Lankan politics

By Gamini Abeywardane

When JR Jayewardene introduced the executive presidency his main declared reason for it was the much needed stability for the country. His argument was that under the Westminster system the country had had too many elections and since independence no government ran for its full term until 1970. He believed that it was a great obstacle for country’s economic progress.

However,what was not stated in public was the fact that the UNP had the island wide total majority of votes in most elections including when the party was badly defeated. What it meant in other words was, if the country had an executive president elected by the people the UNP could perpetuate its rule

Let’s look at the past and see whether these declared and undeclared objectives were achieved as anticipated. Whether the first expectation --the stability for the country was achieved or not is abundantly clear when one looks at the messy status of the current government we have in power.  

The most stable period under the executive presidency was the eleven year period of J R Jayewardene. However, that stability did not come from the presidency itself, but mostly from the five-sixth majority in Parliament which JRJ obtained under the Westminster system in 1977. He kept the same majority for his second term as well, by extending the life of the Parliament through a referendum.

Then Chandrika Kumaratunga’s presidency was marked with confusion and uncertainty with a thin parliamentary majority obtained through the support of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and later the UNP getting the majority through crossovers and so on. It was no better than the so called unstable periods under the previous Westminster system.

Dream of perpetual UNP power

The same way the second and undeclared objective of JRJ, that is to perpetuate the UNP in power did not happen. If you look at the period up to 2015 since introduction of presidential system, out of the 37 years the UNP ruled only for 17 years which means that JRJ erred in his assumption. However, from the country’s point of view which party was in power was immaterial as long as it was the decision of the people. The most important point is that the system never gave the country the kind of stability it was intended to give.

Some seem to believe that it was because of the might of the executive presidency that Sri Lanka managed to end the scourge of LTTE terrorism. However it is also relevant to note that the country successfully faced the 1962 coup attempt as well as the JVP insurrection of 1971 under the Westminster system of government.

There are so many examples in the democratic world where parliamentary system of government has provided sufficient stability and strength for the countries to face any type of grave situation. Neighbouring India is perhaps the most shining example in this regard.

In a parliamentary system it is difficult for an unpopular leader or government to remain in power unlike in a presidential system. Any difficult situation can be overcome through the Parliament itself by changing the old order and putting a new leadership in power without much hassle.

Quite the opposite is happening in our country under the executive presidential system. Instead of the expected stability for the country every person who gets into the hot seat becomes greedy and tries every trick in the book to stay in power and looks at the possibility of extending the tenure even by few months. Resignations are unheard of, and greed is such resigning is akin to death for an incumbent president.

PR system of votes

The proportional representation system of elections was introduced as it goes hand in hand with the executive presidency. The idea was to avoid unwanted landslides and ensure reasonable representation to every political party based on the number of votes received from each district. That way each minority party was expected to receive some representation in the Parliament.

That result would have been achieved and as a result every small party has a member in the Parliament. At the same time it has created a host of new problems pushing the minorities away from the main stream political parties. This has also given birth to a number of ethnicity based political parties further polarizing the society which was already divided.

On the other hand the PR system while preventing landslides has created a worse situation where no party can get a clear majority in the Parliament thereby negating political stability for the country. Today we are suffering the effects of this more than ever before – the country has no stable government and the main political parties are pandering to the wishes of small minority parties for their survival.

It is clear that the executive presidency is the root cause for many of the country’s problems. Creation of power hungry leaders, who cannot be removed during their tenure irrespective of whatever consequences to the country, has caused much damage to the political evolution of the country.

Critical stage

Now the country has reached a critical stage where the majority of the people have got fed up with the existing system and practically lost faith in all 225 Members of the Parliament. This is certainly a sad story for a country which has enjoyed an unbroken democratic tradition of close to nine decades.

Presidential system with its authoritarian tendencies has effectively prevented the emergence of potential new leaders. Instead it has helped the development of a new band of rustic third rated politicians most of whom are henchmen neither keen nor qualified to be future leaders.  This has discouraged good men from entering politics making it easy for the bad lot to survive.

As a result the country is facing a shortage of potential leaders while the people have no faith in the current set of politicians who are fighting for leadership stakes. In such a situation it is naïve to believe that the next presidential election will sort out the current political, economic and social crisis.

The only way out will be for all the political leaders, if not, at least the leaders of three major power blocs, that is the President, Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this issue and come up with a suitable constitutional solution without delay. Reverting back to a parliamentary system with a modified electoral system and holding parliamentary elections under an interim constitution could be one way of tackling the situation.

This can happen only if the country is blessed with honest and national minded politicians who can place the country above their own self-interest at least at a critical time. The misfortune of our country is the lack of such men and women and it is difficult to believe that there will be any change in the foreseeable future.

Read More

National Security needs a defined constitutional and legal status

Non-military aspects should also be included in its scope

 

The reality is with change of government people in defence administration also change and the only way to have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the leaders.

By Gamini Abeywardane

It is no secret that disunity at the highest levels and insufficient priority for the subject of national security had largely contributed to the failures on the part of the government to prevent or mitigate the effects of dastardly terrorist attack on Easter Sunday.

Blaming and shaming apart we need to now find some way of avoiding the repetition of such things in the future. One thing that is now clear is that the National Security Council (NSC), the highest body responsible for the country’s security failed to act upon the warnings given by the intelligence services.

There are also allegations that some of the vital members of the NSC were not invited to several meetings because of the personality clashes at the top level of the political leadership.

This is fundamentally because the current Constitution makes it possible to have the President and the Prime Minister from two different political parties leading to friction at the highest level.

A legal basis for national security

Preventing such a situation of dual governance is not possible without a major constitutional change which is unlikely to happen in the near future. Rather than waiting for the impossible it is prudent to resolve this within a reasonable time.  

However, deleterious effects of such political developments on national security can be prevented, if the NSC is given a more defined legal status with a wider membership, scope and mandatory provisions regarding how it should function.

For example, the United States National Security Council has been established by the National Security Act of 1947 and has a well-defined structure. Chaired by the President, the NSC has five statutory attendees, regular attendees and additional participants.

In addition to the President, the statutory attendees are Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury. It is also supported by a system of committees which includes Principals Committee, Deputies Committee and several Policy Coordination Committees.

In addition to the defence and intelligence officials the system also ensures the participation of other relevant officials such as the Attorney General, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Ambassador to the United Nations, Director of Office of Management and Budget whose expertise and views are important for the country’s national security and there is no room for shutting out anybody on personal grounds.

Status of the country’s security does not depend on who is in the presidency or which political party controls the Senate or the House of representatives because the system by law enables the sitting President to have total control over the national security establishment.

Though there is no such a regular mechanism prescribed by law in our country it is well known that national security and intelligence matters were quite adroitly handled by the then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa during the previous government.

It was a rare combination of a committed group of military and non-military personnel which ensured the successful conduct of the war against the LTTE terrorism. And the type of security coordination prevailed at the time has been commended worldwide and even most recently by former US ambassador to Sri Lanka Robert Blake.

However, the reality is that with change of government people in defence administration also change and the only way to have some permanency and continuity in the system is by having a national security administration defined by law, so that it will be mandatory for all elected governments to honour it irrespective of personal preference of the leaders.

Need for revamping

Now with the current developments the need has also arisen to revamp the entire national security system and widen its scope taking into consideration both internal and external threats. New improved ways of intelligence gathering and processing have become necessary.

With external threats, there is also a strong need to include non-military aspects of national security.  Although originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is now widely understood to include non-military dimensions, including the security from terrorism and crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, cyber security and so forth.

Such expansion in the scope of national security will also require the services of a wide range of experts and technocrats. This will entail a major overhaul in the national security system and the best way would be for all that to be detailed in a properly drafted national security law.

Another important aspect in such a system would be to provide the necessary facilities and the freedom of operation and even immunity where necessary for the intelligence agencies and their operatives to accomplish their tasks without political interference.

Our country has faced three types of terrorism, each time involving one of the three main communities. Two insurrections by the JVP, nearly three decades of LTTE terrorism and now Islamist terrorism which has international routes. Historically each time we crushed one type of terrorism we had become complaisant assuming that terrorism would not raise its head again.

With the latest developments it is clear that terrorism with its global dimensions is going to be a permanent threat to human life. Thus eternal vigilance should be a precondition in our country if we are to achieve any progress, be it economic, social or cultural.

All this will need a practical approach and simply fighting with each other and dwelling in theoretical imaginations about future economic progress based only on regional development will not carry us anywhere. The security of the nation has to be a paramount consideration in the whole equation and it should be kept above mundane party politics. (Writer can be contacted on gamini4@gmail.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More