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.
The country is obviously placed in a catch-22 situation. The writer has pointed out the way out in the penultimate Para of the article. The question is: Will the three leaders rise to the occasion? It's a pity many of us have to share the writer's pessimism!
ReplyDelete