Abolish The Presidency? Then What? A New Constitution? 

By Upatissa Pethiyagoda –

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

There is near unanimity that the Presidential System has failed. Every candidate has before election, solemnly promised to abolish this position, but all, following election, have suffered from a “selective amnesia”, which has allowed this pernicious system to continue. In plain terms, they have lied to the entire voting public. One has even been called “a compulsive liar”. This is simply not acceptable from those who project themselves as the “leader” or “number one” of the country.

If the boss is untruthful as that, surely one cannot fault the subordinates for emulating him/her? Corruption is vicious, contagious and disgraceful. The delusion of being “above all” is clearly untenable.

The imposition of this deceitful system, is credited to the sagacity and foresight of the initiator JR. In my view, this is more like selfish egoism, than passionate fidelity or even political wisdom. He also developed “I disease” (Primus inter pares) – exemplified by the lavish use of “Mang koranawa” verbiage. The practice continues. It looks like a vain effort to confuse “the first person singular” with a “singular First Person.”

Like others who use “I” when they should more correctly use “We”.  When we say that King Parakrama  Bahu built the biggest tank in Polonnaruwa, it would not be right to picture His Majesty clad in an “Amude” (loin cloth) wielding an “udella” (mammoty). This type of vanity, continues blatantly, even today. As a respected colleague once declared, a “good” planter, is one who does no work himself. Sharing credit with subordinates, without hogging it all, is the hallmark of a true leader. Such persons use “I” only to take responsibility for failure.    

By this measure, none of the previous occupiers of the position of “Executive President” have served the nation properly, and has in truth, debased the position, “Big Time”. It takes three generations to breed a gentleman, and there are no shortcuts. Thus we will perhaps need lots of time, until a person of the required high caliber evolves. He / She should exhibit sufficient integrity and fidelity, and to behave in a manner to justify peoples’ faith, to properly discharge the enormous (many may consider “insufficient”. I don’t) power. The common view is that all of our Presidents have perverted the position and exceeded its authority.

A critical re-assessment of its suitability for us is needed. Suggestions for a return to the earlier position of a Ceremonial President (or Governor) have surfaced from time to time. Whether the idea of an “Elected President” will serve, is moot.

The danger is that the extraordinary power of the position EP can lead to “delusions of grandeur”. More so, when the bluebottles around, even address him as “majesty/excellency” and songs are composed to glorify him. The silly bestowed title of “Maharajaneni,” led to claims of lineage to Dutugemunu or his Dasa Maha Yodayas. This is hilarious comedy. One even had the audacity to claim blood relationship to The Buddha. This is no longer merely funny. “In a democracy, your vote counts: in feudalism your Count votes”.

All of the persons who have held the position of Executive President, have behaved like a Simian entrusted with a razor.

Much comment has been made of the academic insufficiency of a majority of present days Parliament. One doubts whether this is of much consequence, considering the ground reality.

The choice of candidates is with party seniors. Merit has low ranking in determining the choice. More depends, on caste, religion, gender, thuggery, financial capacity and potential to replenish party coffers. Consequently, the lawless, drug dealers, thieves, bootleggers, smugglers and other criminals are seen as the most useful to be used as ‘ground’ troops.            

Thus, this first step in the electoral process is far less than democratic. Even the lowliest of professions outside call for minimum qualifications. Then an interview by persons of the required integrity and competence. Why cannot a suitable system, with the same objective be introduced? Surely, is it not an anomaly that even a conservancy laborer has to pass through a filtering process, while one with lesser qualifications can even be a Minister or Prime Minister, or even The president. Some means should be sought to secure the best talent, for the critical function of framing laws for the country.

Why do poor quality blokes and even criminals, get into an important body, like (Parliament) which supposedly determines laws to guide us? Why lament about absence of quality, when the process is so easily subverted at virtually every stage?

One obvious reason for crooks to crave for political position, is because it protects (breach of privilege) any felon. The stark truth is that it positions them close to the Nation’s “Honey pot”, where the capacity to lap is all that matters. If one wants quality, then one must resolutely and fairly equate this with others truly toiling elsewhere. This is the only way of capturing quality. As it is, the dregs of society will continue to foul the atmosphere. Politics will continue to draw the worst, when the legitimate (and also criminal), rewards are so patently and obscenely high.

It cannot be denied that the present parliament, (and those before it), have been of a quality dismally below what the voters were promised, or led to expect. Performance, in fact has been low enough to justify a serious review of their salaries and benefits. There has to be better proportionality, in comparison with what prevails in the outside world.

Considering the real worth of Parliamentarians, which is necessarily wide, I have suggested a possible way. The remuneration could be according to a multiplier. This could be 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, or even higher. This should be authenticated by their latest Income Tax Return. These should be submitted to The Speaker (or other authorized person). This is absolutely compulsory. Any in default, will not receive any payment or any privileges whatsoever, pending compliance.

While the requirement for a Declaration of Assets is already “on the books”, compliance is disgracefully low. It is useless if these declarations were to merely reside in somebody’s drawer, perhaps awaiting termites to get at them.

These declarations should be accessible for any legal or any other reasonable purpose. No such phenomena like the “ownerless Malwana mansion” should arise. Persons who provide information, leading to conviction for tax evasion, should be adequately rewarded. Any honest person purporting to be “serving the people,” should welcome such measures to rationalize state financial expenditure.

It is ironical that while the utmost secrecy is observed in the balloting process, Parliament processes are not so. A “Party Whip” is a member with responsibility to enforce compliance with the decisions of the Party hierarchy, on how all its member should vote.

This is a serious restriction of free choice (= conscience vote). The operation of the Party Whip, and the denial of a secret vote, surely makes a mockery of representative and transparent governance. This is not what “Democracy” is expected to be.

This contradiction, also has other consequences. If all voting in Parliament is subject to the operation of a Party Whip, and is thus pre-ordained, why debate? As Tarzie Witachchi put it, “Communication without transformation, is merely gossip.” If so, of what use is the elaborate and costly pantomime called Parliamentary debate? In fact, what use is there for a functioning Parliament?

Why bother about educational qualifications and citizenship issues, when only double amputees, with no arm to raise, need to be disqualified? The electronic display, got no doubt at unconscionable cost, should cease to be of relevance. Except for exposing those cheats, who took money for their vote but reneged.

Summary

Assuming that the call for abolishing the Presidency and radical reform, as was the insistent and irrepressible cry of the “Aragalaya,” which represented the nearest that had such massive support of the whole country, and thus demands to be heard, and cannot be ignored. This can only be achieved by a “New Constitution.” It is in this context that the following changes are suggested :-

(i) The Presidency 

Among the so-called “Pillars of a democracy”, the President should belong to the “Legislative branch,” of which he may be the head. “The Executive” is what we now call “The Administration.” To “execute” is to do, perform, follow, achieve etc. This is precisely what government administration does. This branch also has the closest contact with the public, and thus most in need of reform. The “judiciary” may remain as it is. The legislature would continue with its duty to formulate Laws, with the President as its Head. This seems the most appropriate structure for effective governance. Recent events must show us that practices sanctified by long usage, can still be overlooked by an insensitive and deluded Presidency.

Irrespective of whether he is nominated, elected or selected by Parliament, The President should have no “Executive” role, and be largely ceremonial. The use of the word “Executive” in the title, has led to misinterpretation, and so should preferably be excluded from a new title. If so desired, he could be assigned to cover matters of a Non-political nature. While positioned as the Head of the Legislature, he could for example, oversee such matters as Climate change, Renewable Energy, Recovery of damages arising from Shipping disasters, Seabed mineral resources, optimizing benefits from international interventions such as the “Carbon Credits” scheme, handling of radioactive waste, and others that may develop in the future. These are subjects beyond political diversity.

(ii) The Cabinet    

Kept to a minimum and strictly targeting operational efficiency, and not political expediency. There is need for review of State involvement, strictly in matters of personal choice. For example, Religious Affairs, Sports and Culture. Even the reformation of the medium of instruction in Education, by granting the choice to parents. The overwhelming cry would be for English.         

(iii) Nomination of candidates

The process of selecting candidates is by the hierarchy, as at present and where electors have no role. The present system has to change and conform to normal process. File application -> Curriculum Vitae -> Interview -> Selected Candidate. Meritocracy is of the essence.

(iv) The Electoral Process (Polling)

The very large number of parties is confusing. This is aggravated by the need to pick three preferences. Further, the sequence of marking is new to voters. By the present rule of first marking the party favoured, (out of perhaps a few dozen on the list), and followed by the number of the preferred candidate, is open to significant error. The prescribed format of the ballot paper, is such that an error in Step 1, distorts the preference seriously. The possibility of the preferred individual being not of the preferred party, presents a massive problem to the less sophisticated voter. The ballot paper, accommodating nearly a hundred Parties, symbols and candidates’ names, (in three Languages) could result in a ballot paper the size of a bedsheet, and sufficient to baffle even the most sophisticated voter. With dozens of parties, and candidates, (all in three languages), even the smartest of voters could be baffled.

The process of counting the ballots would be a nightmare. The Presidential poll, may mercifully not be as difficult as the Parliamentary.

(v) The Product – the MP

The mere fact that a prisoner, convicted of murder, is brought from Death Row to be sworn in as an MP, is reason enough to discard the prevailing Parliamentary culture. Further to this, how could a person who lost his own seat at an election, and sank his whole party into oblivion, enters as a nominated (?) MP, get selected as the PM and then becomes our President, is a laughable bit of nonsense. All this is supposed to be in accordance with the Constitution. Is there any need to such an aberration? One need say no more about such a silly document, which has also needed some 21 Amendments, and should be dumped in the nearest dustbin. We are also told to “Honour” this rag of a Constitution. What a load of BS!

An MP has said that more than half The Cabinet are drug users. The alleged Number Two of the local Drug Mafia is a State minister! To what further depths can we descend?

There is hardly any indication, that any (even of the few literates), read the reams of paper left on their tables, (all in all three languages). The Cabinet, even it was of the highest stellar intellect, can possibly take any thoughtful note of the hundreds of important issues “referred to it”.

A less than two-Day Week, a handy attendance fee, an absurdly subsidized Members’ Restaurant, and near heavenly comforts, makes it utterly scandalous, that it still cannot draw sufficient for a miniscule quorum. At some time, even Hell will become over-crowded.

As long as the Party Whip and open voting is compulsory, there is no purpose in elaborately symbolic discourse (all too often in filth, that is better restricted to a rowdy marketplace brawl). The Nominated List is so abused beyond any vision or expectation. The current aberration of the RW Case, makes further comment superfluous.

To what a state has our pathetic circus of a “Supreme Assembly,” debased and devalued itself.

I do not wish to proceed any further, about the evils and absurdity of our Constitutional mess, not because I have not covered all of it comprehensively, but because of unwillingness to risk cardiac disorder, in dealing with such a pathetic reality.

One can only look forward to some relief, come 21 September. Or will it be much of the same?