Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

She proposes and then she opposes. That seems to be the way the Presidency operates today considering the provisions in our Constitution and the circumstances we are placed in today with a President and Prime Minister from two opposing political alliances.

In a way, the many hats the President wears in different circumstances, compels the President to be contradictory in her approach to governance issues. This is no reflection on the current incumbent, President Kumaratunga, who is functioning within the terms of the constitution. Someone else in this position today would have acted similarly.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Head of Government and Head of the Cabinet. However, she is also the President of the SLFP and the head of the People's Alliance, and therefore the actual Leader of the Opposition. It is not conceivable to see her acting in a genuine, non-partisan way, if she holds all of these offices.

If she were to act in non-partisan way, there would have to be a National Government, where her political alliance would have equal representation with her political opponents. But then, how does one interpret the mandate given to Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNF at the last election? Were the voters presented with this scenario and asked to vote on it?

The Presidency therefore, in the context of how the current holder of the office is positioned, performs a Jekyll and Hyde role in the affairs of governance in the country. As per constitutional provisions, all policies and programs of the UNF Government led by the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, all Cabinet decisions and all activities of the Armed Forces, are those which have the seal of approval of the President, or are supposed have anyway.

Then, by virtue of other positions held by the President and hats she wears, she has to necessarily oppose her own policies and programs, except where effective political consensual agreement is reached not by the President and Prime Minister of the country, but by the same persons wearing their other hats as heads of the PA and UNF.

This state of "mallum" (to use a good old epithet) is referred to as 'co-habitation today', where confusion reigns as to which hat one is wearing at what time. Co-habitation is forced, in a way, on both parties that make up this "malluma" with the President empowered constitutionally, to dissolve Parliament one year after elections and the PM and Parliament in a position to block funds for the Presidency and also in a position to table an impeachment motion that would prevent the President from dissolving Parliament.

In this cat and mouse game, no one knows who will get whom until a real stand-off occurs. That eventuality may not be too far away. The current co-habitational marriage was certainly not made in heaven, and its demise will not anger the gods. It might, though, sicken the people who elected these two persons to their positions.

This state of affairs cannot last very long as national and international leaders will realise who wields real power, and then gravitate towards that office, paying lip service to the other just for good order and diplomacy. The recent visit of the USA Assistant Secretary of State is a case in point.

This episode has diminished the office of President, and it has been caused by the short-sighted actions of the President, the lack of sensitivity and respect for this office and therefore to the Constitution on the part of the Prime Minister and yes, the US State Department.

This absurd situation has to change. It is recognised that a constitutional change to do this is not a top priority for the government led by Ranil Wickremesinghe (or is it President Kumaratunga or both?) Rightly, the ethnic issue and constitutional changes required to solve it are the priority for this government. We are told that co-habitation extends to this specific issue, though the recent MoU signing appears to have to strained the President-PM relationship to some degree.

This is an example where the holders of these offices, wearing their political party hats, have agreed to co-habit in principle, but have some difficulties in doing so when they don their Presidential and Prime Ministerial hats.The powers provided to the Presidency should be viewed as reserve powers available to the holder of the office at any point of time to check excesses by a government, and to safeguard whatever is identifiable as "state" institutions and property, both physical and intellectual.

In fact such reserve powers should be codified and should not be changed unless by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and an over 50% (of total eligible voters, not polled votes) result at a referendum to ensure that any changes have wide community acceptance. Further, an agreed amount of money allocated for the Presidency should not be subject to parliamentary approval.

However, such a President should not hold a party political office, and should be truly independent so that power can be exercised in a non-partisan way when required without fear or favour. It may be necessary to limit the term of an individual, to one six or seven year term.

A discussion about a Presidency, whether one is required and, if so what powers it should have and not have, may be pre-mature as the country has to grapple with a bigger problem at present. It would be helpful though, for more effective and real co-habitation, if the current holder of the office resigned her party positions and became more distant from partisan politics, and established her independence. She would then be bale to exercise her vast powers when required, without being accused of partisanship.

Such a move would not have constitutional consequences and would provide an opportunity at a later stage, perhaps in two years time, when the ethnic issue has been addressed and a political framework agreed upon as a solution to the conflict, to discuss what type of Presidency we need for the country. One thing is clear: the Presidency as it is constituted today, is neither feasible nor desirable for the country.

While the above proposition is one option to be considered, it may not see the light of day due to the acute polarisation of political parties and the stridency shown by the President and to a lesser extent the Prime Minister to each other. The President's pique and the fuel that fires this is evident for all to see. The most recent demonstration of this now notorious pique was her refusal to meet the US Assistant Secretary of State Rocca. The reasons given for her inability to meet the US official are too thin and not very credible.

A simplistic posture of equating the US Assistant Secretary of State to a Deputy Minister is wholly unrealistic. The power and influence of the United States is something we have to face up to whether we like it or not. Further, the issue of protocol is not credible, because the President herself broke protocol by meeting a British Cabinet Minister in his office during her visit to London just before the election.

As much as the President has to take some responsibility of her erratic behaviour, the Prime Minister and some of his ministers have to share some blame for creating this conflict and demeaning the office of President.There has to be recognition of her constitutional position and respect for that position. There has to be recognition and acceptance of some partisan behaviour on the President's part due to her party, political positions. This situation will persist unless the President relinquishes these positions as suggested above.

However, as we are unlikely to see idealism triumph over realism, it is more prudent for the country in the short term at least, if both parties to this conflict, i.e. the President and the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, were to grant some acceptance of the President's actions as head of an opposing political alliance and at the same time, respect and recognise her role as the constitutional head of this country.

This might be more difficult to do for street brawlers who have assumed high political office, but it should not be so for persons of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's stature or for an academic like Professor G.L. Peiris. After all, if we are on the road to accepting the role of a person like the LTTE leader Prabhakaran, surely the President and her Prime Minister and Ministers should be able to manage this conflict relating to their respective constitutional roles in a more cautious and honourable way?

When we look at how a developed country like France is managing a similar situation, with the President from one party and the Prime Minister from another, and both opposing each other at the next Presidential election, we do look under developed not just economically, but politically as well. We do believe that the Presidency must have only one persona, either Jekyll or Hyde, not both. The question is, can it or, will it, happen?

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager