‘We want total abolition of executive presidency’
January 29, 2015, 8:06 pm ,the island
An interview with
Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri
Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri
Spokesman
for Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera’s National Movement for Social
Justice Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri speaks to C. A. Chandraprema about
the apparent lack of interest in the new government in fulfilling the
pledges relating to constitutional change they made during the election
campaign.
Q. The new government
was elected on certain core promises. The main cause around which all
of you united was the abolition of the executive presidency. Now more
than three weeks into the new regime, we are hearing less and less
about the abolition of the executive presidency, especially from the
newly elected president. There are various street shows being enacted by
activists of the new government to fill TV news bulletins while
constitutional changes have been pushed into the background. What we
are hearing is about limiting the term of the president to five years.
That’s not quite what you had in mind is it?
A.
There are concerns about that among people who supported this
government. This has been discussed among the various bodies of the
National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) as well. What the NMSJ
envisaged was a complete abolition – a return to the pre-1977 system.
The proposals brought by the JHU are different. There was a discussion
the other day with Dr Jayampathy Wickremeratne and though there may be
some differences in the timeframe it appears that the process is on
track, but it appears that it will not be a complete abolition. We have
to watch the situation. The government exists on a certain equilibrium
among political forces. There is the UNP then there is the
Chandrika-Maithri camp and the JHU within the government’s decision
making circle. If we look at the vested interests involved, Ranil would
like to see presidential powers being reduced. He needs to enhance the
powers of the prime minister. The UNP has a lot of bargaining power
and, therefore, I believe the executive powers of the presidency will
be reduced to a great extent.
Q. Even if the powers of the presidency are reduced, we seem set to have a president who will continue to be elected.
A. That
problem has certainly come in for discussion. Even Jayampathy
Wickremeratne raised the question whether there was any point in having
an elected president after the executive powers are reduced. Having an
elected president is an issue because an elected representative can
claim certain powers. That is an issue that has to be taken very
seriously. If powers are going to be reduced then why spend money on an
election?
Q. According to the proposals
put forward by the JHU, the president in addition to being the
Commander-in-Chief has to be the defence minister. The defence
portfolio as well as the foreign ministry was always brought under the
prime minister in the pre-1978 Constitution because it was so
important. How can the executive powers of the president be reduced with
such an important portfolio remaining in the hands of the president?
Are organisations like yours agreeable to this JHU proposal?
A. We’ll
have to look at the final outcome of all this. The main question will
be whether the president we are left with is able to dominate
parliament as at present or whether his arbitrary powers are reduced
with checks and balances. I think the acid test will be whether the
president will be able to completely control the prime minister and the
cabinet.
Q. Just supposing
subjects like national security and defence remain with the president –
he will be able to do anything claiming a state of emergency. How can
we prevent a situation like what prevailed during the 1970s under
Indira Gandhi in India? After all it is the president who decides what
constitutes a situation warranting the declaration of an emergency.
A. The
same thing can happen even in a prime ministerial system. Executive
power can be abused wherever it lies. In the United Front government of
1970-77, Felix Dias Bandaranaike also wielded enormous power. Every
constitution has provisions to meet exceptional circumstances. Those
provisions can always be abused. The problem with the presidential
system that we have here is the power it has to dominate all other
branches of the state. When the National Movement for Social Justice
spoke about the abolition of the executive presidency, it was a total
abolition that we had in mind. If Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha had
contested, he would have left the position altogether within six months
after having made the necessary constitutional changes. The parliament
would have elected a William Gopallawa style ceremonial president as
head of state.
Q. If the executive
presidential system is going to be changed, one thing that needs to be
done parallel to that is to change the electoral system because no
party can get a clear majority in parliament under the present system.
Under the present system, governments have got clear majorities in
parliament only in 1989 and 2010. In 1994, 2000, 2001 and 2004, no party
got a clear majority. If the presidency is taken out (or presidential
powers are reduced) and we have hung parliaments, that is going to
bring the whole country to a grinding halt. So it is absolutely
essential that the hybrid first past the post and proportional system
that has already been discussed extensively by the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Electoral Reform be introduced to prevent complete chaos.
A.
My personal view is that there is going to be a series of
constitutional experiments in the future. I am sceptical about the
proposed electoral reforms because smaller national parties like the
JVP will be left without representation in parliament. The reforms
however will favour regional parties like the TNA. I would prefer
proportional representation without the preferential vote system.
Q. You can’t deprive the two main parties of working majorities just to keep two or three JVPers in parliament.
A.
That is why I said that this has to be the subject of extensive
discussion. The political party system itself is in a state of flux
today. There is the possibility of a major division in the SLFP at the
next election. It is still not clear what Mahinda plans to do. There is
a small alliance forming around him and that, too, has a support base
which I think will be considerable. Then nobody knows what the JHU is
going to do. The Sri Lankan political party system is in a fluid state
now. I am not convinced that stable governments can be built entirely
through technical arrangements in the law.
Q.
Your organisation the national Movement for social justice under the
leadership of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera was created for the sole
purpose of abolishing the executive presidency and bringing in
constitutional change. Now, nobody seems to know what is going on.
A.
The National Movement for social Justice is now seeing increased
support. A lot of people who helped change the government but are
unhappy about the way things are going are joining up with the NMSJ. The
majority view in the NMSJ is that the executive presidency should be
abolished and we should adopt a hybrid first past the post and
proportional representation system.
Q.
Another thing that we discussed before the election was the slogan of a
non-party common candidate. That changed just a week after the
election. Now, the non-party candidate is the leader of the SLFP/UPFA
which has 136 MPs in parliament. The excuse is that without enough MPs
the constitutional reforms cannot be pushed through. But, the new
president is now involved in SLFP politics. The first thing that he did
was to put a stop to the crossover of SLFP provincial councillors so
that the PCs will remain in the UPFA fold. Such involvements are only
going to increase and not decrease in the coming days. If you noticed,
none of those who broke away from the SLFP or the UPFA to join
Maithripala really joined the UNP. What would you say to this?
A.
I don’t pay much attention to the power games of the governing elite.
The reason why the NMSJ promoted Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera as the
presidential candidate is because he has no political vested interests.
Maithripala Sirisena is a person with political vested interests. When
Sirisena’s name came up as the common candidate that was one of the
issues that I raised. But, in hindsight, when looking at the margin of
victory, Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera may not have been able to win.
So, we had to compromise. That happens in realpolitik. The only way to
counterbalance the situation is with pressure from below. The question
before NMSJ is how to mobilise popular sentiment. But, we must not look
at this negatively because the powers of the executive presidency will
be diluted and some democratic reforms like the independent
commissions and the right to information law may be passed.
Q.
The main campaign slogan was not the right to information act. The
mandate received was to abolish the executive presidency and to change
the electoral system.
A. That is
right. When we wanted to campaign only on the issue of abolishing the
executive presidency, people criticised us saying that you can’t have
only good governance and constitutional change on the agenda. They said
that while that might be good enough for the Colombo elite, you can’t
attract rural votes with just that so various other items were added to
the agenda such as reductions in the prices of essential commodities.
But, the mandate of the NMSJ is for the total abolition of the
executive presidency.
Q. If that
does not happen within this 100-day period and only some cosmetic
changes are made, what is the stand that the NMSJ will take?
A. We have already decided that a popular opposition movement is needed.
Q. You mean you are going to agitate for the abolition of the executive presidency?
A. Absolutely!
There was a discussion yesterday with a large number of member
organisations and a series of actions have been decided upon. I can’t
elaborate on that now but we are going to agitate for our original aim.
