'Executive Presidency cannot be abolished in 100 days'

Translated by K.D Kittanpahuwa

Veteran political analyst, writer and former diplomat Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke spelt out his views on the Presidential Election at an interview with Rupavahini recently.

Let us share your views on the current political situation

Q: “Most people assert that there is a dictatorship which I had denied throughout. There is only a political monopoly. The reason for this is attributable to the decadence of the Opposition. It might perhaps look like dictatorship. There could be a good competition, if there is a rival whose image is acceptable to the people.

A: By the way, a competitive market is conducive to the consumer. Certain dangerous developments such as abolition of the Executive Presidency and restoration of parliamentary supremacy within 100 days have emerged in the current political discourse. No politician worth his salt one could condone such ideas.

This is not good at all. The true aspects of a Presidential election, have not been understood properly. Our politics have become stale and need reorientation. A change is necessary. Where, when and who should effect this change, has to be straightened out.

A presidential election is not meant to change governments but to elect a leader to run a country. A general election is the proper forum to elect governments.

The two appear to have got mixed up. Issues such as change of government or Constitution need not be discussed at a presidential election. We ought to decide on the most important candidate at a Presidential election; he should give leadership to the country. As the situation is fraught with danger, a cautious approach is important.

Q: The Common Opposition candidate has released his manifesto. Criticism is levelled at its being a cat's-paw to help realise the separatist agenda. How do you explain this?

A: Any unwise decision on the part of the Opposition will certainly be to the detriment of national unity. There won't be progress at individual, family or even group level. The national unity is vital to move forward and achieve progress as anticipated.

‘A Constitution with an executive accountable to Parliament through the Cabinet will be introduced instead of the present all-powerful Executive Presidency, the Opposition manifesto states.

As a political scientist, I would say that this will create an adverse effect on the country.

If the Executive Presidential system is seen as authoritarian, amendments should be brought in to do away with the offending provisions.

Former President J.R. Jayewardene, the architect of the Executive Presidency once said that a strong executive was needed to ensure national progress in third world countries.

This is crystal clear to us today. While the Opposition says that it has decided to abolish the Executive Presidency and transfer its Executive powers to Parliament and Cabinet, we see parliamentarians crossing over to other parties.

Does this mean that we are going to empower parliament which lacks stability? In whom could we repose our confidence? Is it the President who has won 50.1 percent of votes or Parliament? Who is the captain of the ship? Maithripala Sirisena says he would delegate the captain's powers to others. President Jayewardene who had realised the instability of Parliament introduced the Presidential Executive. If Parliament is to be empowered instability will become the order of the day.

Q: Were it not the Presidential executive powers that helped President Premadasa to deal with Varatharajah Perumal when he hoisted the Eelam flag?

A: I am surprised at the intellectual hypocrisy of the Sri Lankan politics today. Certain political parties which opposed the 13th Amendment attempted to destroy it and killed those who supported it. The 13th Amendment is alright for them even without the Executive Presidency.

A wonderful hypocrisy in our politics! I support the 13th Amendment but only under the steel-frame of the Executive Presidency and the Provincial Council system.

When the Provincial Council system was proposed in 1987 the Supreme Court said that it was the Executive Presidential system which could ensure the existence of the Provincial Council system within the framework of a unitary form of government.

It is the Executive powers of the leader that will be devolved on the governors. However much the Executive powers are decentralised the responsibility rests with the leaders.

I am happy that the Provincial Councils function under the executive presidential system. Wigneswaran's and the TNA's main criticism against the Provincial Councils is that powers are not adequate.

They have alleged that the powers need to be exercised through the Governor and President and cannot go beyond. What will happen with the abolition of the Executive Presidential system? Who could say the bird will not fly away when the cage is opened?

If this system succeeds, the Eelam flag will be hoisted the following day. But the Provincial Councils could thrive only under the Executive Presidential system. What will happen if this system is abolished in 100 days?

Wigneswaran is a former judge and he would seek judicial remedy to secure powers.

There could be an anarchic situation in the country if the Executive presidency is emasculated. When Provincial Councils are removed from the executive presidential system, western countries will start filling the void. The Tamil diaspora too would follow suit.

Western countries are eyeing Trincomalee to have their interests realised.

The communalistic forces are waiting to capitalise on the situation that arises with the removal of Provincial Councils. If it happens, it will be difficult to overcome the situation.

Q: Are these people attempting to deliberately open the country to foreign forces and the diaspora?

A: This is not Maithripala Sirisena's idea. This has come from Chandrika Kumaratunga's Constitution. She wanted to be back in Parliament as the ruler having completed the two terms.

I do not think anybody will ever permit separatism in this country.

I see this as the third greatest operation to weaken the fabric of the State and the national strength. The first was Ranil Wickremesinghe's Cease-fire Agreement.

At the time the Ceasefire Agreement was signed Sri Lanka's military heroes were hunting down the Tiger Leaders in the Mullaitivu jungles. Eight LTTE terrorist had been killed. Prabhakaran was to be liquidated on December 25, 2001 and Ranil Wickremesinghe stopped it. Our Army intelligence personnel at the Athurugiriya Safe house were taken into custody after the Ceasefire Agreement. Consequently, the Security Forces had to evacuate. The second greatest setback was to occur about the time when the LTTE demanded an interim administration. Rajitha Senaratne back in Colombo after discussions at Kilinochchi, justified the need for an interim administration through a poster campaign in Colombo. By virtue of the powers under the executive presidential system, Chandrika opposed this move. Chandrika has apparently forgotten this today.

Thereafter, Chandrika created the P-TOMS, a post-tsunami mechanism where five seats to LTTE, three to the Sri Lanka Government and two to Muslim were provided. On a petition to the Supreme Court by the JVP as represented by Wimal Weerawansa, the then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva disallowed the P-TOM Mechanism. This was to be another great setback to the national strength.

As I see the fourth most preposterous move is the abolition of the Executive Presidential system in favour of the parliamentary system. After the switch-over to the parliamentary system who will exercise this power? The Opposition will have to accede to the demands of the minority parties such as SLMC and TNA if they coalesce with them.

The balance of power could be changed by any body as long as the power rests with Parliament. Rates too could be changed if the diaspora is permitted to invest its black-money. What will happen then?

Q: For the first time, certain areas of the country were designated as LTTE controlled areas. Is there a likelihood of emerging a similar situation?

A: Not LTTE, it is terrorism. What happened in other countries? Scotland was on the brink of disaster. When the Executive Presidential system is abolished, the Northern Provincial Council will decide to have a Referendum (it does not mean that they ask for Eelam) or withdraw military camps. If these are not acceded to, a majority government could not be formed. Should we face such a situation?

Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, except for Britain other countries such as USA, France, Russia and China have an Executive Presidential system. There is parliamentary government only in Britain.

Even in the BRICK organisation accept for India Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa have adopted an executive Presidential system. Vietnam is no exception. There is nothing wrong in the Executive Presidential system. Why should we want to change this system?

Q: What is responsibility of the Head of State?

Is it good governance or suppressing enemy forces?

A: The defence of the country is the main task of any President while the Government is held responsible to ensure good governance. I have discussed this matter with the leaders of the two main parties. The Opposition's criticisms are not directed against the President. Most people speak good of the President.

If so, why do you want to change the individual? ‘Change’ could be effected only by parliamentary vote. Strength, competence and good conduct are the main attributes of a leader to be considered. President Rajapaksa is endowed with all such qualities, namely strength, competence, capabilities and considerable experience. If so, why should we send him home? At this juncture if the electorate is to make such an extreme decision our country will plunge into a deep abyss.

Q: On what basis do you say that the President's plus points have outnumbered the minus points.

A: Terrorism has taken a heavy toll of countries. The most ruthless terrorist organisation in the world was defeated under the President's leadership. Some might say it was Fonseka who won the war. Fonseka was in the army for ten years from 1994 to 2005. General Janaka Perera, General Gamini Hettiarachchi, General Sarath Fonseka were in Chandrika's army. Did they win the war?

Q: Chandrika claims that she had won 75 percent of the war?

A: If it was so why does she want to set up the P-TOMS and provide five seats for the LTTE, three to the Government and two to Muslims? How was it that Lakshman Kadirgamar was killed in Colombo? This is baseless talk. The Jayasikuru Operation had to be called off as more than 1,000 soldiers were killed. Over 1000 soldiers in the Mullaitivu camp lost their lives.

The reason for these losses as told by Anuruddha Ratwatte to me was the lack of an adequate number of troops to man the areas conquered by the Security Forces.

The Wanni operation was botched because of Chandrika and Managala Samaraweera. The anti-war Sudu Nelum movement and Thawalama came into being during Chandrika's time, while the LTTE was directing attacks on the Security Forces.

According to Ratwatte the anti-war sentiments discouraged the youth joining the forces. Sudu Neluma and Thawalama were the main culprits. The result was the loss of precious lives of the youth.

Chandrika suffered serious injuries in one of her eyes due to an LTTE attack but not when she tried to change the constitution as claimed by her.

The bomb attack was a windfall for her to procure military assistance from the powerful world leaders as President Rajapaksa did and defeat LTTE terrorism.

Instead, in her BBC Hardtalk she invited the LTTE for peace talks. Why couldn't Chandrika and Ranil if they were so close to world powers – muster support to defeat LTTE terrorism as President Rajapaksa did.

Knowing very well that our children are getting killed and the diaspora was operational, Erick Solheim from Norway was brought down.

The current UN's international investigation against Sri Lanka is headed by former Finnish President Marti Atisari who was brought down to Sri Lanka by Chandrika to solve our problem.

At the time Chandrika became more powerful after dismissing Prime Minister Ranil's three Ministries, General Fonseka functioned as the Jaffna Commander. Chandrika removed Fonseka from Commandership and made him Commander of the Army volunteer force.

This was how Chandrika treated Fonseka. President Rajapaksa made Fonseka the Army Commander one year prior to his retirement. Recently one person who crossed over to the Government had told that they mobilised themselves for the Mavilaru battle.

President Rajapaksa had already drawn the plans to defeat LTTE terrorists long before the Mavil Aru battle.

Q: Maithripala Sirisena had said that during the final phase of the war against terrorism 40,000 soldiers had been killed and therefore, he would have this investigated by an Independent Internal body if he is elected. What have you got to say about this?

A: What he said was wrong. He should have said that he was totally against the UN investigation which he has not said anywhere. I do not agree with what he said. In the task of uniting a country what the Security Forces had done have never been investigated. I entertain suspicion on this statement.

Q: Will the President be hauled before the Hague Tribunal?

A: People at this juncture ought to make a wise decision. In 1815 King Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe did not give in to the imperialists. Even at this time good governance was also discussed.

The king was branded as a criminal. Our chieftains handed over the king to the custody of the imperialists. Although they were happy over what they did the country suffered under the imperialist yoke for over one and a half centuries.

It is only natural for any independent, strong leader to be repressed by the reactionary forces which brings about the downfall of an entire nation.

The Opposition's medicine to save the country is worse than the disease! The Opposition pledges to defeat the President whom they call a dictator. Who are the dictators who hold democratic elections?

Q: Today the Opposition speaks of the President with hatred calling him a Gadaffi.

A: I am surprised at what Dr. Rajitha Senaratne says. Marcos declared martial law in 1972, Suhartho seized power by military intervention in 1965 and massacred 1.5 million Communists in Indonesia.

Has Mahinda Rajapaksa committed any such acts? It is very disparaging for Dr. Rajitha Senaratne to say that President Rajapaksa too would face the same fate as Gadaffi.

As a third World country are we on Gadaffi's side or the NATO's invaders who wreaked havoc in Libya? Utterances such as what happened to Gadaffi will happen to Mahinda portend future danger. Chandrika appointed a Commission to inquire into Vijaya Kumaratunga's Killing alleging that Ranasinghe Premadasa did it.

Another commission was appointed alleging that Premadasa killed Denzil Kobbekaduwa.

What will Chandrika do if Mahinda Rajapaksa will be defeated? Sajith is now at the same platform along with Chandrika who found fault with Premadasa.

Is it correct to enthrone Ranil and Chandrika who drove us to death while pensioning off Mahinda who rescued us from death? Maithripala is going to transfer executive powers to Ranil and Chandrika if he is elected President.

Q: Is this the real case?

A: It is unethical and dangerous. If President Rajapaksa who saved the people from LTTE savagery is hauled before an international court that will be a grave mistake which cannot be rectified. We voted President Rajapaksa to the presidency to check the terrorist war.

He was voted back to office to develop an economically decadent country. The Singaporean Prime Minister said Sri Lanka is on the path of rapid economic progress being only second to China.

Q: Divergent views have been expressed on the President's third term of office.

A: J.R. and Chandrika who failed to protect us were voted to office twice. Sirisena says that Mahinda was given a second term to pay gratitude to him. Does it apply to both J.R. and Chandrika? There is nothing wrong in giving a third term to one who has proved his mettle rather than to an unsuccessful bidder.

Q: Would you believe whether the Opposition would withdraw the Army or close the high security zones in the North?

A: Maithree says that he would transfer the executive presidential powers to the Prime Minister and Parliament. What will happen to Maithripala after the 100 days? He said he would go home after stripping the Presidency of its executive powers. Who will exercise the decision – making power? Is this the way you are giving leadership to the country? Who will be our leader? This is unintelligible to me.

Q: The Opposition says that Sri Lanka will be a Chinese colony. Allegations are also levelled against negotiating foreign aid.

A: This is deplorable on the part of the Opposition. China gave us the wherewithal to fight the thirty-year terrorist war. If not for China we would not have won the war. In fact, we should be happy that an Asian Country has become the second biggest world economy. We should use this opportunity. We don't get Western support to develop our economy.

Why doesn't the Opposition speak against the West as they speak against China? The Opposition has failed to realise the strength of the Chinese monolith.

We do not have an Asian consciousness but only an imperialist mindset.