Although it might be argued that the President’s action in taking over three ministries which had been under the Prime Minister without consulting him and while he was abroad, accords with the constitution, it is an immoral act. At the time the UNF came to power too, the President had the right under the constitution to appoint a cabinet of her choice instead of one nominated by the Prime Minister, but she did not do so because she knew such action would have been interpreted as an abuse of power and would have led to great turmoil. Under the constitution she is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces but she appointed a nominee of the Prime Minister as defense minister, because she knew that, in the context of a different party having secured a majority in the parliament, any other course of action would have led to strife.
In spite of a conflict between the Prime Minister and the President, a government of co-existence composed of these two opposing parties has survived so far because the President, although she was the executive President, was able after parliamentary power had passed on to an opposition party, to follow a policy of flexibility different from that followed by her when her own party had a parliamentary majority.
What the President says now is that she decided to take over the ministry of defense because the agreements entered into when she had agreed to let the opposing party take the defense ministry have not been complied with, and because it is not possible under the constitution to have that ministry under anybody else other than herself. The reasons adduced to claim the defense ministry have some validity, but how does she justify the take over of two other ministries in addition to the Ministry of Defense? Also, why was it necessary to take over these ministries while the Prime Minister was abroad and without any consultation with him?
It is clear that the President has implemented a well-planned constitutional coup. It also appears that the request made to the judiciary for an interpretation was also a part of the same act.
When the background to this dispute is examined, the actions of the opposing party in regard to the President too, can be considered correct. The manner in which the Prime Minister’s party had acted in violation of the principles that prevail in a government of co-existence, cannot also be commendable. The Prime Minister could have, at the time his party won election, taken the people to street against the President on the basis of the popular mandate he had received, if he had wanted. There were a group in the government too who held the view that such action should be taken.
However the Prime Minister without choosing that path opted to a policy of co-existence with the President. Although the path chosen by the Prime Minister was correct, the cabinet including the Prime Minister was not able to maintain a cordial and friendly policy suited to a government of co-existence, with her. Both parties functioned in mutual distrust and disgust. The Prime Minister’s party functioned with the idea of invalidating her politically as soon as there was an opportunity.
The Prime Minister and the cabinet were interested in establishing co-operation with Prabhakaran with whom there are major differences, but they showed no honest interest in establishing cooperation with the President with whom the differences were less.
Now this conflict has led to a crisis of major magnitude in the country. It is having a negative effect not only on the economy but also on the peace process. This dispute cannot be settled through a struggle in the street or through an election. Under the present constitution no party can get absolute power through a parliamentary election. Therefore this dispute has to be solved through mutual trust based on mutual respect on the part of both the leaders.
If it is possible to make this dispute a starting point for a general agreement between the two parties about the reforms that have to be effected in the country, then it will be possible to bring about a new chapter in the history of our country. If it is essential to have an election it will be possible to go for it with a specific timetable and with an agreement on the reforms necessary for the general welfare of the country, and after enacting the necessary laws. Thereby it will be possible to give life to the system of independent commissions which is in its death throes and to change the electoral system and create a basis on which any party that comes to power will be able to act in a spirit of co-existence.