Premadasa: Abolish Executive Presidency

By Raisa Wickrematunge

Speaking to the Leader, Hambantota District MP Sajith Premadasa revealed why the UNF is adamant that the Executive Presidency needs to be abolished. Excerpts:

Q: Your Father the late R. Premadasa was an Executive President. He did nothing to abolish it.  You are now part of a massive campaign calling for the abolishment of this office.  Why?

A: The UNP has taken a decision at the Working Committee that the Executive Presidential system affords the President unlimited powers, and effectively promotes elected dictatorship. Sri Lankan society has to be democratised- and this process entails the abolition of the Executive Presidential system. The incumbent President has used his office in an undemocratic manner, to stamp his authority on all issues in Sri Lankan society, and this led to the discussion for the need to abolish the post.

Q: In your heart of hearts do you sincerely believe that abolishing the presidency is the best thing for Sri Lanka?

A: The Working Committee, of which I am a member, and the Political Advisory committee discussed the attributes and the shortcomings of this particular course of action. The majority of the members of the committee decided that abolition of the Executive Presidency is the way to go.

Q: Can it be argued that, in a developing country like Sri Lanka, the Executive Presidency is a requirement?

A: It has its plusses and minuses. If you have someone in that office who has a tendency to respect democratic rights of their country, one can certainly argue in favour of the system. However it’s the total abuse and misuse of the Executive Presidential system that has led to the calls to abolish it. The system of governance, in terms of constitutional structure, is not too important in the development of a country, as long as a basic level of democracy is installed within that structure. You can have a Parliamentary or an Executive Presidential system of governance, there are various systems. Of course when you have the Executive Presidential system you can take authoritative decisions. If you have the right person in place you can take a single-minded approach to achieve things, but the issue of abuse of power and privileges afforded to such positions is the indispensable reason which has led to clamour for the abolition of the Executive Presidency.

Q: None of the UNPers created a whimper of protest when J.R Jayawardena created the Executive Presidency and reigned supreme followed by your father R. Premadasa and D.B. Wijetunge for 16 years.  Why now?

A: Well, take for example the various constitutional reforms that have been accepted by all sections of society, like the implementation of the 17th Amendment, which has been purposely obstructed by the President using his Presidential powers. He is not too interested in implementing those provisions, as that would be a further check and balance to his own power. So it’s the basic misuse of the Presidential powers that has lead to this.

Q: But why didn’t the UNP campaign against the presidency at that time? Wasn’t it a curse even then?

A: I think that position was not so blatantly abused at that time. It didn’t leave an indelible mark on Sri Lankan society. Whereas right now, I think members of almost all political persuasions have come to the conclusion that this system needs to be abolished.

Q: The abolishment of the executive presidency is a complex constitutional process.  How confident are you that a new government led perhaps by General Sarath Fonseka can and will deliver on this count?

A: The election campaign of General Sarath Fonseka is based on the abolition of the Executive Presidential system. In order to abolish the system Fonseka would have to gain a 2/3rd majority and would have to gain the approval of the people in a referendum. We are confident he will be Executive President, and he can obtain a 2/3rd majority in Parliament. He would only need 50% plus one vote to ensure he was in the majority. So overall we are confident that Fonseka could deliver this.

Q: A new constitution will have to contain inter alia devolution. What does the UNP propose by way of devolution?

A: The manifesto is under discussion, and yet to be formalised. We are looking at various basic models of devolution. However, I don’t want to comment too much, as it is still very much in the preliminary stages. We are discussing methods of devolution which will also protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Sri Lanka.

Q: Will the 13th Amendment be retained or some other devolution method introduced?

A: As I said, the manifesto is still being formulated. It is yet to be formally presented to the country. Once that is done, everyone will know what method of devolution is to be followed.

Q: What about the electoral system? Are we going to stick to the same PR system or revert to the first-past-the-post system?

A: A mixture of both the First Past The Post and the Proportional Representation system is being discussed. Again this is only being discussed, and people will have to wait until the manifesto is out.

Q: Do you honestly believe that abolishing the Executive Presidency is the most critical need of the hour at a time when the country is struggling to manage a host of post war problems such as resettlement and rebuilding?

A: As I said before, the very heavy-handed approach of the President led to the huge call for the Presidential system to be abolished. Party decision-making structures discussed at length and came to the conclusion that the abolition of the Executive Presidency should be a national priority. Of course, whilst discussing this, various members had their own ideas. However the UNP follows the rule of collective responsibility- in that the view of the majority is taken up by the entire party. Those dissenting have to toe the line and abide by the final decision.

Q: Were you one of the people who came up with different issues for the UNF to endorse at these discussions?

A: Well, I had some ideas which I presented. I don’t think I can say any more as I don’t want to reveal inner party discussions. However I must repeat that our party follows a policy of collective responsibility and decision making, and therefore the majority decision must be supported by others as well.

Q: Finally what would be the difference between an executive president and an executive prime minister?

A: I suppose as far as accountability, an Executive Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament at great lengths. At present the President can ignore Parliament, except when it comes to the appropriation process for financial issues, when Parliamentary approval is needed. The Parliament is insignificant right now. The idea of Executive Prime Ministership is still at the discussion stage, and is yet to be formalised. However the idea is that there would be more accountability and therefore a lesser possibility of abuse of power.