groundviews » Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?

Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?

February 5, 2010 at 12:20 pm · Categories: Colombo, Constitutional Reform, Politics and Governance | by Sanjana Hattotuwa

A pre-presidential election conversation I had with well-known lawyer and activist Javed Yusuf touched upon a number of issues vital to Sri Lanka over the course of 2010 and well-beyond. Javed Yusuf was Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid-90′s, and in this video strongly argues for the abolition of the office of the Executive President. He notes that the myth of the office protecting the rights of minorities has no basis in fact, noting that no Executive President has really helped the minorities to fulfil their aspirations.

Javed also touches upon issues of post-war reconciliation.

A divergent view is expressed by Dr. Harinda Vidanage. An old friend from College, Dr. Vidanage introduced himself as a political analyst and is today the Director of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS). Among the issues we touch on, including the nature and extent of corruption in the Rajapakse administration and the presidential elections, Dr. Vidanage explicitly notes the importance of the Executive Presidency in our political system and strongly advocates reform over abolition.

On Page 56 of the English version of Mahinda Chintanaya 2010, the President notes that,

“The Executive Presidency will be converted into a Trusteeship which honours the mandate given to Parliament by being accountable to parliament, establishes equality before the law, is accountable to the judiciary and enacts laws that are accountable to the judiciary, and is not in conflict with the judiciary.”

Five years earlier, on Page 97 of the English version of Mahinda Chintanaya 2005, the President noted that,

“… I expect to present a Constitution that will propose the abolition of the Executive Presidency and to provide solutions to other issues confronting the country. In the interim, I propose to present a Constitutional amendment through which the Executive President will be made answerable to the Parliament by virtue of holding such office. To endorse the responsibility that the President has to the Parliament, I will attend Parliament once a month.”

Debate on the salient points of both interviews, as well as the sentiments in the two versions of the President’s manifesto regarding the office of the Executive, are encouraged.

875 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

A brief response to Dr G.L. Pieris I refer to Dr G.L Peiris’s interview extracts published by the Sunday Island on 6th December. He says “Any legislative measure to abolish the executive presidency must satisfy two conditions – it must be supported by a two-third majority in parliament and endorsed by the people at a referendum”. This of course is correct. But why... RMB Senanayake, December 8, 2009
Visualising Mahinda Chintanaya 2010: The President’s election manifesto Groundviews was the first website in Sri Lanka to visualise key statements by a Presidential candidate in the public domain. We followed up with a visualisation of Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto. The incumbent Executive’s manifesto was released in English on 14 January. On the website, it is called Mahinda Chinthana – Vision of Future. The cover page... Groundviews, January 15, 2010

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

Justin said,

February 5, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

Does it matter as o whether Sri Lanka has executive Presidency or premiership when there is no practice of democracy and free elections?

Any Sinhalese person will confess that the Sinhalese together are facing a free fall politically, socially and economically. They will soon be right at the bottom.

The Sinhalese are terribly tumbling down and so is the country. You reap what you sow.

What you do to others will happen to you too, so that one understands that wrong done is wrong and not right.

Gota said in a recent BBC interview “These are the people who [...] have other motives, asking [for investigations]. Whether it is United Nations or any other country, we are not – I am not – allowing any investigations in this country. There is no reason. Nothing wrong happened in this country. Take it from me. There will be no investigations for anything in this country. I will not allow [it]. That is not what public wants. That is not what this country wants.

“Don’t ask anything about any investigation. Don’t talk to me [on] any investigation. There will be no investigations in this country. Take it from me. I am the Secretary of Defence…”

Can one see the defiance and arrogance against democracy?

Economic sanctions and UN war crimes tribunal are necessary to put things right in SL.

Sony said,

February 5, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

You see Sanjana, no president has fulfilled the aspirations of the majority as well. People should have only attainable aspirations. Otherwise, people will be stepping on other peoples’ foots in a crowded place like Sri Lanka. Western solutions are probably not suitable for an Eastern society.

Sony said,

February 5, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

Justin

You are living in a La La land. Wake up, smell the coffee. Have not you noticed that the Western powers are silent about these same complaints lately? They know that MR won. They are moving on. You should too. We might be able to do something productive.

Sengodan.M said,

February 6, 2010 @ 6:26 am

It is highly unlikely that the Executive Presidency would either be abolished or the powers of such position reduced. Anyone who had tasted such tremendous power would hardly like to give it up voluntarily. No change will happen in this island until the people wake up and realise as to who is responsible for all their impoverishment and suffering. Until then it will be business as usual and we will merely be discussing things and events. There will be no or very little change in the forseeable future!

Belle said,

February 7, 2010 @ 9:42 am

It was good to hear Javed Yusuf speak. I was especially struck by his moral vigour when he argued about the difference between detention orders with merely the seal on it as opposed to the defence secretary’s signature. He said that unless the latter was present, it would seem that nobody had “put their mind” to the matter. Yes, violations of freedom entered into lightly, thoughlessly, without the need to engage anyone’s moral sense. It appeared a minor observation but he put the finger on the crux of SL’s political situation.

I only disagree with him on one point: that the Sinhalese population are by and large, tolerant and supportive of the minority. No doubt there are many, many such people in SL, perhaps even a couple of millions. But not enough in terms of a critical mass to make a difference, I think.

As for Vidanage, is it symptomatic that a person who is pro-Executive Presidency is also exceedingly tolerant of corruption in government? Corruption happens everywhere, he says: it is part of global capitalism. Actually, that’s not the whole story of global capitalism, is it? Globalization has also increased expectations of honesty and transparency in government, thanks to global flows of ideas of democracy. It offers channels for information on corruption that allows details of corrupt deals to keep leaking out into the public arena. This puts pressure on governments to restrain their tendency to abuse their positions. So corruption in government cannot coexist with democracy–people’s rights and access to information (offered by global capitalism) have to be trampled on if corruption is allowed to continue. So how, believing in the value of the executive presidency and corruption as a ‘natural’ phenomenon of global capitalism, can he then claim that Sri Lanka has a better potential for democratization than many other countries?

The ‘democracy or development—choose between one or the other’ binary may once have been valid. I don’t think it is any longer viable within the context of global capitalism.

niranjan said,

February 8, 2010 @ 11:59 am

I disagree with Javed Yousuf on one point when he says that the Sinhalese are not chauvanists. The Sinhalese that I have met not all but the majority are intolerant of Tamils in one way or another. I have heard Sinhalese say “the tamils belong in India” and other such disparaging remarks.
I am a Sinhalese and racism is not a healthy trend for a country which is looking towards ethnic reconciliation after a long war.
I am told that there are racists on the Tamil side as well. We need a proper education system in order to fight racism. What we have now is inadequate.

niranjan said,

February 8, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

Belle,

“I only disagree with him on one point: that the Sinhalese population are by and large, tolerant and supportive of the minority. No doubt there are many, many such people in SL, perhaps even a couple of millions. But not enough in terms of a critical mass to make a difference, I think.”-
I do not think that there are millions of Sinhalese who are tolerant and supportive of the minority. There are certainly some but it does not go into millions as you calim. I am a Sinhalese and I can see a lot of racism around.
If you look at the recent elections the only one who was perhaps not a racist was Wickremabahu Karunaratne

SomewhatDisgusted said,

February 8, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

niranjan,

“I do not think that there are millions of Sinhalese who are tolerant and supportive of the minority. There are certainly some but it does not go into millions as you calim. I am a Sinhalese and I can see a lot of racism around.”

I disagree with you, mainly because I feel you’re looking at things from a first world perspective and not a third world one. The attitudes and circumstances in this country cannot be viewed from a detached or utopian viewpoint. While people may be racist in terms of frowning on inter-ethnic marriage or being tribal in attitude for example, there is little racism in terms of denying people opportunity, daily harassment based on ethnicity etc. (Not to say they don’t exist, but I certainly don’t think it’s severe)

This is because, unlike in the case of white racism, there is no perception of actual superiority on account of race. This is true of both Sinhalese and Tamils. It’s probably more appropriate to call racism in Sri Lanka racialism instead. I believe that both Tamils and Sinhalese have very tribal attitudes and are racialists, mostly stemming from post-colonial identity crises. This is evidenced by “Sinhala only” type of acts as well as demands for 50-50, federalism etc. since independence.

However, the fact that people at large are tolerant is evidenced by some simple observations. In the case of the Sinhalese, despite the continuous terrorism of the LTTE, in many cases with the explicit intention of provoking a reaction, there was little or no backlash on ordinary Tamil people. The attack on the Temple of the Tooth for example, is a case in point. A severely racist society would have reacted differently.

In the case of the Tamils, despite the particularly nasty pogroms in the past and the generally uncertain political climate, they nevertheless stoically put up with their circumstances and live and interact with Sinhalese people admirably well. I think this is ample testimony to their own lack of racism.

Therefore, most of the trouble stems, I believe, from a small minority of vocal extremists who are preying on the identity crises of the respective races. Should they be adequately sidelined, I believe it should be possible for ethnic reconciliation to take place. There is ample evidence on this very forum of such people. The refusal to engage constructively with reasonable people who have declared beforehand their desire for equality and the constant vilification of the “other” race is only indicative of racism on their part. Why else would you feel a burning need to do so in the first place?

I would agree however, that the SL population has far to go in terms of cultural sensitivity and general attitudes about race. However, any pronouncement on racism in Sri Lanka must be seen in a fair light. Simply labeling a country racist does not provide a proper perspective on whether that racism borders on continuous persecution or the racism is the tribal kind typically found in many countries.

yapa said,

February 8, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

Dear Niranjan;

You say;

“The Sinhalese that I have met not all but the majority are intolerant of Tamils in one way or another. I have heard Sinhalese say “the tamils belong in India” and other such disparaging remarks.”……………………………….

Dear Niranjan;

Many times I have noticed you are drawing grave conclusions on a few observations.( some times on a single observation).

I think you know drawing conclusions from observations are known as ” Induction”. Do you know the nature of the conclusions based on induction? Unlike of deduction, the accuracy of the conclusions derived from induction is always doubtful. The credibility of such conclusions can be increased by increasing the number of observations, however, still there is no guarantee that such conclusions are correct. This means lower the number of observations, lower the credibility of the conclusions.

Just think about conclusions you are brave to draw and post on public forums. Don’t you think whatever you talk on such conclusions on critical issues could be misleading and misguiding. Just because you have heard one or a few Sinhalese say “the tamils belong in India” you have drawn the conclusion that “majority of Sinhalese are intolerant of Tamils in one way or another.”

Keeping your mouth shut, I presume is a good service you can render to the whole world.

( I am sorry to blame you at the very first instant I addressed you after a very long time, but I can’t help it.)

Heshan said,

February 9, 2010 @ 9:43 am

The problem is with the Sinhala-Buddhists in the South, not Sinhalese Christians, Kandyans, or most Sinhalese living outside of SL. If you look at the history, even the Kandyans wanted a separate nation for themselves, and also supported the right of the Tamils towards independence. As far as voting goes, Kandy has generally been a UNP bastion. Statistics are not difficult either: 99.9% of all Sri Lankan President’s have been Govigama Buddhists from the South. The 1983 riots began in the South. Standardization benefited largely unqualified Sinhalese in the rural South. When monks want to protest, they protest in Colombo. And, all of the Sinhala nationalist parties (JHU, JVP, etc.) have their base in the South. I am not saying there are no tolerant Sinhala-Buddhists in the South. Rather, I am merely pointing out that the South is the bastion of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism.

Now, I pointed out that Sinhalese outside of Sri Lanka, e.g. Sinhalese diaspora does not suffer from an anti-Tamil complex. That is because, living in the West, one is forced to interact with so many different groups of people, of every hue and stripe, that it is difficult to remain a true racist for very long. Racism requires conditioning, the sort of conditioning that is easy in a place like SL, where you have only two races. Of course, it is unreasonable to suggest that SL should have many more races of people (which would actually solve the ethnic conflict overnight). What is needed, in fact, is some sort of recognition of the demographic homogeneity existing in society, and a sustainable solution like federalism which is cognizant of the insurmountable barriers that any minority living in such an environment faces.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

February 9, 2010 @ 10:14 am

” Of course, it is unreasonable to suggest that SL should have many more races of people (which would actually solve the ethnic conflict overnight)”

What if you mix Sinhalese and Tamils up really well? So they get used to each other? Best way to solve the ethnic conflict overnight by your own reckoning I guess.

niranjan said,

February 9, 2010 @ 11:24 am

Yapa,

My observations are based on conversations that I have had with quite a few Sinhalese over a long period of time and not one or a few as you claim.

There are racist Sinhalese as well as Tamils. There are non-racist Sinhalese as well as non-racist Tamils. The problem starts when racists become a majority in any community.

Groundviews is a public forum. “Misleading and misguided” is your own intepretation. You are entitled to your views.

“keeping your mouth shut”- I am writing and not talking. elementary my dear watson elementary.

“I presume is a good service you can render to the whole world.”- childish and silly statement.

Yapa I dont take your comments seriously. There is a well researched comment by somewhat disgusted just above yours.

niranjan said,

February 9, 2010 @ 11:48 am

somewahtdisgusted,

In you well researched post you made an interesting distinction between racism and racialism.

However, I disagree with your claim that “This is because, unlike in the case of white racism, there is no perception of actual superiority on account of race.”-
I think there is a perception of Sinhala superiority over the Tamils and Muslims. This is largely due to historical reasons such as the Sinhalese having arrived in SL first. There is definitely a line of thinking(JHU and some members of the public) which seems to suggest that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese because they were the first settlers(quite apart from the Veddhas).

niranjan said,

February 9, 2010 @ 11:58 am

Heshan,

Interesting article.

“The problem is with the Sinhala-Buddhists in the South,”- agreed.
But not all Sinhala Buddhists.
It is better to use the word “Sinhalese” without the word “Buddhism.” Buddhism is a philosophy and at least in the Sri Lankan context religion/philosophy does not seem to have played a major part in the conflict.

The South has to get its act together( as a former boss of mine in the foreign ministry was fond of saying) But it is doubtful as post war politics is taking a very different turn as to what was expectated.

niranjan said,

February 9, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

somewhat disgusted,

Interesting comment. You have differentiated racism from racialism.

“This is because, unlike in the case of white racism, there is no perception of actual superiority on account of race.”- disagree. “there is no perception of actual superiority on account of race.”? -Sinhala superiority is based on the argument that the Sinhalese were the first people to arrive and settle in SL.
Sinhala superiority is based on race.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

February 9, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

Dear Niranjan,

“Sinhala superiority is based on the argument that the Sinhalese were the first people to arrive and settle in SL.
Sinhala superiority is based on race.”

I think I wasn’t clear in my earlier post. Unlike in the case of white racism, where other races are considered mentally and physically inferior, the racism found in Sri Lanka is not really of that variety. Yes, the Sinhalese consider themselves superior in the sense of being the “creators of ancient Sri Lankan civilization” and therefore feeling that everything being Sinhala is good enough, just as the Tamils feel superior in terms of considering their language and culture to predate all others and that they are equally deserving of special status, maybe even an Eelam. This is why I agreed at the outset that there was tribalism present in both communities.

However, I don’t think either of the two races necessarily consider the individual person to be less “human” or intrinsically lack worth, which is where I see a difference from white racism.

This is further evidenced by the fact that both communities in fact have relented on many issues. For example, Buddhism has been awarded state patronage in recognition of its historical legacy. The Sinhala only acts have been reverted and Tamil has been made a national language. Again, highly positive acts and certainly not the acts of irredeemably racist people. Such positive indicators are generally ignored by those seeking to further their own racist goals. The emphasis should only be on the negative aspects, after all, any possibility of reconciliation would immediately scuttle their agendas!

I personally believe it is possible to reconcile the two communities. Indeed, apart from those vocal racists, the average person is co-existing reasonably well. Further levels of “enlightenment” must come, but gradually, as further intellectual and moral awakening takes place over time (which is why development and education are critical factors). I mean, tell me one country where the races don’t feel different or slightly superior for whatever imagined reason? Until the mindset shifts to measuring the worth and merit of individuals, as opposed to the merit of one’s ancestors which one really doesn’t have any claim to, this problem will remain. That is the reality of a third world country, and just as often first world ones, so let’s take things a bit easy!

It’s in this context that I would also ask you a question. Tell me, what in modern day Sri Lanka is different from any other country, that would make it impossible for these remaining issues to be corrected? What makes it impossible to move ahead within a unitary state? Any severe problems that would justify the need for an Eelam over reform? (yes, there are issues with societal attitudes which need to be corrected over time and with development as I mentioned, but can you point to reasons why co-existence is impossible)? Please keep third world realities in mind when answering that question.

SomewhatDisgusted said,

February 9, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

I should mention, my mentioning of Buddhism being awarded state patronage was an example of the tolerance displayed by minorities. There was no real hue and cry about that. Therefore, I believe the Sinhalese should feel just as grateful and be willing to do their utmost to preserve the culture and identity of minorities.

rajivmw said,

February 9, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

Heshan,

Being of southern origin myself, I agree with you that the region is quite nationalistic. But it is a JVP stronghold, not JHU. The JHU got its votes mostly in the middle-class Colombo suburbs.

Here are the popular vote percentages for the JHU at the 2004 general election (from wikipedia):

Galle: 4.2%
Matara: 4.0%
Hambantota: 0.5%

They didn’t get a single seat from the South.

By contrast, check out the Western Province:

Gampaha: 19.4%
Colombo: 18.0%
Kalutara: 10.1%

They got 6 seats from this area, plus 1 from Kandy.

My feeling is that this performance was a one-off, a protest vote against the mainstream parties at that point in time. It is highly unlikely that the JHU would replicate these results at the upcoming general election should they decide to contest under their own banner (which they won’t).

It is fashionable to lump the JVP and JHU together, but there are very significant ideological differences between the two. The JVP, although fiercely nationalistic and opposed to devolution, is not a communal party. They are ardently secular. They have done considerable outreach work among the Tamil and Muslim communities (I remember Taraki writing about this some years back). No other major party is as studious in including both Sinhala and Tamil in their campaign materials.

As for the ’83 riots, they erupted in Colombo. I’m not sure if you consider the city part of the south, but most Sri Lankans certainly don’t. As far as I know, most of the violence was in the capital and the upcountry, including Kandy, not down south. Although that’s possibly because there was a relatively small Tamil presence there.

I’m not as certain as you are that there is less racism among Sinhalese Christians, but I’ll admit it wouldn’t surprise me if that were proved to be so. They are second to none in religious bigotry though, in my opinion.

As for the Sinhalese diaspora, my goodness, there is far more racism among them than I find here in SL. Some are certifiably nuts. But if you are referring to the sons and daughters of the immigrants, those who have spent most of their lives abroad, well then you may be right.

Heshan said,

February 10, 2010 @ 2:36 am

raijvmw,

Thanks for the clarifications. I have been abroad some years now, so my gauge of popular sentiment comes largely from dissecting the comments section of various newsgroups and forums like this one.

Regarding the JVP, my premise was based on their staunch opposition to open door economic policies (e.g. Western economic models) and devolution of power to the minorities. As per their position, devolution on any large-scale equates to separation, which is, of course, the position held by right-wing Sinhalese nationalists. I am not overly familiar with their economic theories, but the opposition to free trade is probably based on some notion of total self-sufficiency. The actual implementation of a program that had total self-sufficiency as its objective would involve some element of nationalism, e.g. communal farming supervised by the State. The litmus test here would, of course, be if the JVP actually came to power (one of their own held the seat of Executive Presidency). Right now, they do not enjoy that level of privilege, so like all political parties, certain things must be done to stay afloat – certain concessions must be made, and the platform of the party must encompass a somewhat broader scope than normal to encourage membership from the larger society. I believe the JVP is a wolf in sheep’s clothing – it will appear tame enough until the appropriate moment to strike presents itself. The Weerawansa debacle and the back-and-forth oscillations between lending support to the ruling party and withholding it would seem to back up that point.

The statistics you gave for JHU support are interesting. Then again, it is only 6 years old. On the other hand, it is a partner of the government. Very few of its policies actually differ from the policies stipulated in Mahinda Chinthanaya or some similar SLFP document. If the SLFP does not take any action to do away with the Executive Presidency, JHU will not oppose, since the JHU goal is to have a strong Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist at the Center. If the SLFP does not bother with devolution for minorities, the JHU will not raise a ruckus. Similarly, we do not see the internal fractures in the JHU, that we saw in the JVP. Could it be because the JHU is satisfied with the performance of the present government? On a larger scale, it would mean that the Sinhalese nationalist ideology is also alive and well.

As far as the Sinhalese diaspora goes, what I meant to say is that they have very little stake in the future of SL, and so, regardless of any developments in the latter, the diaspora would come to some sort of understanding much easier than say, a farmer in the rural South of SL. In other words, the diaspora would not automatically equate a federal model of devolution with separatism; neither would they interpret every action by the West as part of some great conspiracy to destabilize the region.

Heshan said,

February 10, 2010 @ 2:39 am

Small mistake: I should have said UPFA, instead of SLFP.

niranjan said,

February 10, 2010 @ 11:31 am

somewhatdisgusted,

thanks for that excellent well researched response. I agree with you on many issues.

However, I also differ on a few. For example you said “Yes, the Sinhalese consider themselves superior in the sense of being the “creators of ancient Sri Lankan civilization” and therefore feeling that everything being Sinhala is good enough,”- I would add that the Sinhalese feel superior because they were the first to arrive in this country. The very fact of having being the first to arrive goes a long way in making them feel superior. Civilisation came later.

“The Sinhala only acts have been reverted and Tamil has been made a national language.”- Tamil was made a national language(under the 13 amendment) due to Indian pressure and not because the Sinhalese wanted it to be made national.
The 13 amendment faced severe criticism from the Sinhalese and the politicians in general at the time.
Even now certain people supportive of the JHU want the amendment to be scrapped.

“It’s in this context that I would also ask you a question. Tell me, what in modern day Sri Lanka is different from any other country, that would make it impossible for these remaining issues to be corrected? What makes it impossible to move ahead within a unitary state?”-

First Sri Lanka is not modern. The majority of the population is engaged in agriculture. Any country which is engaged too much in agriculture will not modernise.

The majority of people engaged in agriculture have a feudal or semi-feudal mentality. They think day to day and not in terms of bigger issues. The thinking of the majority community matters a lot for remaining issues to be corrected in this country in terms of minorities and coexistence. If the majority community thinks that the minorities do not matter then no politician will want to take up minority issues or address them. After all it is the people who elect Parliamentarians.

Besides the education system is totally out of date. Rationality is lacking in our education system. This is something which needs to be corected. As a result our population is not thinking rationally and are mass educated. They are educated in terms of quantity and not quality. What we need is a rational quality education or at least something close to that.

However, the biggest obstacle to correcting the remaining issues in this country are its politicians. All political parties and individuals to a great extent lack vision for the country. They are simply playing politics(crossing over) and are not looking at the bigger picture. Look at what happened to the 2000 draft constitution. The UNP opposed it in Parliament. Minority issues were addressed in that Constitution. We had experts like Neelan, GL, Lakshman Kadir involved in that draft. Only GL is alive now.

What makes it impossible to move ahead under a unitary system? The following are the issues that make it impossible to move ahead-Devolution of power under the 13 amendment is not done properly. There are issues over police and land powers to be resolved.
Just take a look at the election results for the North and the East? Is that not an indication of where the minorities stand even after the war. Are they happy with the devolution that they have?

The issues with regard to minorities will take years and years to solve. In certain respects we have regressed. The APRC process is in the back burner. The UPFA is expected to win the Parliamentary election and once that happens minority issues will be put aside as the new Government will not have any use for them. After all it is the majority Sinhala community that elected them into power going by election results so of what use are the minorities at least for the Government?
In Sri Lanka the negatives outweigh the positives.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI