21A: Not a panacea for all ills | Sunday Observer

21A: Not a panacea for all ills

5 June, 2022

There is a healthy debate in the media as well as in political circles over the interaction and intersection between the current political and economic crises. One school of thought is that the shortcomings in the political structure have led to the present crisis in governance and hence, the economic crisis.

Others believe that the two have no connection at all – that the economic slump was anyway going to happen regardless of issues of governance due to the way in which our economic matters were handled by successive Governments.

These two schools of thought have now come to the fore in the light of the debate surrounding the proposed 21st Amendment, which is supposedly a repackaged 19th Amendment. There is no doubt that the 19th Amendment, though not without its flaws, was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in recent times. It drastically pruned down the powers of the Executive President and enabled Parliamentary supervision over most matters of State via the Constitutional Council which had both Members of Parliament and Civil Society representatives.

The 20th Amendment that came next, perhaps in response to the perceived weaknesses of the 19th Amendment, reversed most of the provisions contained in the 19th Amendment and again concentrated a profusion of powers in the presidency.

Some indeed say that Sri Lanka would not have achieved its impressive success over Covid-19 if the President did not have a surfeit of powers at his disposal to deal with the alarming situation. They also pointed out that Presidential powers would be necessary to curb any insurgencies and so on.

In fact, many question whether Sri Lanka would have been able to crush the LTTE so decisively in May 2009 without the resolute political leadership of the Presidency at that time. According to the proponents of the Presidential system, many of the economically and socially successful countries such as USA, France and Russia have Presidential systems, some with more powers than those available to the Sri Lankan President.

On the other hand, opponents of the Presidential system of governance say many countries have made tremendous gains without having a President at the helm. The best example is the United Kingdom, from which we had borrowed the Westminster system. Australia is another example for a democratic nation led by a Prime Minister. In our neighbourhood, both India and Pakistan do have Presidents, but in a ceremonial role and the Prime Minister and Parliament have the real powers of decision making.

The current controversy over the proposed 21stAmendment stems from the fact that several versions of it have been proposed by various parties and individual MPs. The main Opposition Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) said that the proposed 21stAmendment draft circulated by Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has actually watered down many of the clauses of the 19th Amendment, which may even lead to strengthen the Presidency, witting or unwittingly. The SJB says that it has presented the most comprehensive set of proposals regarding the 21st Amendment, though its ultimate aim is abolishing the Executive Presidency altogether.

However, there is no consensus on the latter even among the Opposition. SJB stalwarts including Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka have openly supported the presidential system of governance and it is also no secret that there are a few individuals in the Opposition camp who harbour presidential ambitions. In any case, the pros and cons of abolishing the Executive Presidency should be carefully weighed by all political parties and other stakeholders. It should not be done solely with the aim of targeting the present President either, for the sake of political expediency.

The clauses regarding dual citizens have also proved to be controversial. Dual citizens are not allowed to hold public office in many countries. Those opposed to dual citizens entering Parliament say their allegiance is for another country, not Sri Lanka. But there is another view- that barring dual citizens in this manner may actually discourage dual citizens from coming here and helping their motherland in whatever capacity. Again, the pros and cons of this move should be carefully analysed before the die is cast.

There is another view regarding the proposed 21st Amendment and abolishing the Executive Presidency, which is that they should indeed be done, but not at this particular juncture when the people are suffering untold hardships.

This view is subscribed to by many MPs of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, (SLPP), who say that the economic crisis has to be resolved first. Indeed, it is imperative that dollars are secured and the shortages of fuel, gas and essentials are eased to afford relief to a weary public.

From the people’s point of view (not the pundits in the seminar circuit), Constitutional Amendments can come later, after their woes are addressed first. There indeed is a sentiment in society for a “system change” per se, but even then addressing the people’s difficulties must be the priority for all concerned.

The Government and the political parties must now decide whether to give priority to either Constitutional Amendments or the economic crisis. If they can, however, engage in both processes simultaneously, that will also be welcomed by the public.

After all, even to negotiate or receive aid from foreign Governments and multilateral lending agencies, political stability is also essential. Given that it is virtually impossible to hold a General Election right now due to the state of our finances, the best option is to ensure a semblance of stability in the present political landscape until such an election can be held perhaps one year down the line.

Comments