Westminster or prime ministerial
system of government, with whatever its weaknesses, has worked well for
centuries and well-developed traditions and conventions are available to meet
with any situation. We are probably paying for our sins after haphazardly
changing a system of governance which had worked quite well in our country for
a long time.
By Gamini Abeywardane
The leaders
of the United National party which introduced the 1978 constitution described
it as the panacea for all political ills of the country since independence. The
political opponents of the UNP saw it as the road to dictatorship and end of
all freedoms.
All
Presidents that came into power after J R Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa
climbed on to the pinnacle of power on the promise of abolishing the ‘tyrannical’
executive presidency though none of them stuck to their promises beyond the
election date. Instead, they enjoyed the powers and perquisites of the high
office to the maximum and also examined the possibility of sticking to it
beyond the two terms.
The only exception
was Maithripala Sirisena who upon his election tried to deliver his promise
quite honestly. Fresh from the victory backed by all forces who wanted to re-establish
democracy and give the Parliament and the judiciary their due place,
Maithripala had no qualms about giving up the massive powers attached to his
post.
Probably the
reason was, he never contested on his own accord or as a candidate of his own
political party, but was handpicked and persuaded to be the common candidate by
a combine of all those political parties and the civil society groups that
rallied round Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera to topple the Rajapaksa
regime.
Amidst
massive opposition, pandemonium in the Parliament and constitutional snags, Maithripala
could only go half way in terms of delivering his promise of abolishing the
executive presidency. The balance part in terms of the Supreme Court
determination was not possible without holding a national referendum.
The
nineteenth amendment as such, was the maximum he could have gone, however
honest he would have been in his attempt to deliver his promise. Ironically
enough even he seems to be now regretting over going that far. He now tells the
country that nineteenth amendment is the reason for the mess we are in today ---the
scuffle between the Premier Wickremesinghe and him as well as other political
woes.
At the same
time he stated that the eighteenth amendment almost created an absolute
monarchy and there was great need for a change. It is an admission that the
nineteenth amendment, despite its faults, was a progressive step. However, at
last he seems to find fault with both eighteenth and nineteenth amendments.
Indirectly,
the suggestion is that it is better to change the nineteenth amendment before
the next presidential election in order to prevent a recurrence of a similar
situation in the future. That seems to have some point.
What if the
next two elections also produce a President and a Prime Minister who will pull
in two different directions? By nature of the nineteenth amendment the holders
of the two posts will enjoy some sort of equal power and the worst is if the
presidency and the premiership go to two different political parties.
Such a
scenario is not impossible particularly in the current context of confusion and
chaos with no party or individual in politics considered exceptionally popular.
Then, the only option will be to go on for another four and half years as the
President under the nineteenth amendment will have no authority to dissolve
Parliament before such time.
Consensus
It is only
the consensus among political parties that can resolve such an issue in a
democracy. However, our experience is that consensus on such a major issue is
never possible in our system where the greed for power and perks overtakes
national interest.
That way the
country has no other option than tolerating all the ills of the Constitution
and the system until some party obtains two thirds majority in the Parliament
which is again a near impossibility under the prevailing proportional
representation system.
Thus the
possibility is for the nineteenth amendment in the present form to remain a
part of the Constitution whether one likes it or not. All this would have been
avoided if the process to draft a new Constitution that began in the Parliament
several years ago had seen its fruition.
A major part
of the work in that regard has been already done, but it is not possible to go
ahead with it in the prevailing political climate. It is also unlikely that a
future government will be able to revive that process and continue with it from
where it has been stopped.
However,
with date for Presidential elections fast approaching there is no time for
debate over any such things and inevitably the matter will be left to the next
President and the Parliament to resolve.
So the
likelihood is that there will not be any possibility for a totally new Constitution,
but piecemeal changes may be introduced from time to time depending on the
outcome of each election. We will have to live with each amendment for some
time to see how workable they are.
Future
politics will be complicated with unexpected issues coming up because of the
friction between Parliament and the President. The reason is there are no
conventions or precedents in our system because we are still experimenting with
our presidential form of government.
Judicial interpretation
The only
hope in this regard can be the judicial process which will be able to play a
decisive role in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution as happened in
the recent judgments of the superior courts in the unsuccessful attempt to
dissolve the Parliament.
The matter can
also get resolved to some extent if the next government gets a clear majority
in the Parliament. Still there is a greater possibility that many of the
matters of friction among the various agencies of the government will end up in
courts and that can be one way of resolving some of these issues once and for
all.
A Constitution
like any other system has to evolve and maybe we are going through this
evolution. Further amendments or judicial interpretations will become necessary
to overcome every obstacle that we may confront on the path of our
constitutional development. The country’s courts will have a definite role to
play in it.
Westminster or
prime ministerial system of government, with whatever its weaknesses, has
worked well for centuries and well-developed traditions and conventions are
available to meet with any situation. We are probably paying for our sins after
haphazardly changing a system of governance which had worked quite well in our
country for a long time.
