The President called the Constitution of 1978, a ridiculous constitution, but continued to enjoy the privileges of the Executive Presidential System. She did not even introduce reforms in it, to do away with the contradictions. Consequently she has to pay for it now.
Wild plantains (Atikehel) are a tasty food for the polecats. But the polecats who eat them greedily, have to pay heavily for it. The Executive Presidential System existing in Sri Lanka is like wild plantains. The taste of its power is very sweet. However, those who enjoy it greedily because of its taste alone find it difficult to digest it.
Analysing the pros and cons of the Executive Presidential System at a time when the Constitution of 1978 was adopted, Dr. N. M. Perera said that its smooth functioning at a time when the UNP had a 5/6th majority in Parliament would not be found in a subsequent Parliament. He said that at a time when there would be a right wing President and a left wing legislature or a left wing President and a right wing legislature, the resultant crisis would bring the entire political system into disrepute.
Although the author of that Constitution introduced a system of Proportional Representation, he in a most cunning manner made use of the power given by the 5/6th majority.
However, with the introduction of the Proportional Representation System in 1989, there was a change in the picture. Although the President was elected from one party and he had got a working majority in Parliament, the Executive Presidential System faced a serious crisis when there was an impeachment levelled against President Premadasa. This showed that there would be a conflict between the President and the legislature even when they belong to the same party. This was something that Dr. N. M. Perera had predicted.
Mr. Wijetunge who succeeded President Premadasa after his assassination, did not show his power to the People’s Alliance who achieved parliamentary power at the election of 1994. He did not play with his power in nominating a person to the post of Prime Minister or in nominating the Cabinet. He became a nominal President and permitted those who came to power to function without his interference.
Ms. Kumaratunga who came to power subsequently was able to function without a crisis in her first term of office, but assembled in that very first term all the factors necessary for a future explosion. To conduct such a system successfully, it would be essential to follow a policy of compassion towards the Cabinet colleagues and the parliamentary group, and in addition, it would be essential to follow a policy that was conducive to the dignity of the opposition party.
Although her parliamentary power was extremely limited, her conduct was even more arrogant than that of J. R. Jayawardene who had the backing of a 5/6th majority – she oppressed the opposition to the maximum extent. No election held during her administration was fair. There was rampant corruption and violence in every one of them. Her attitude towards Cabinet Ministers and MPs was marked by trust or respect. All of them were loyal to her not due to any respect towards her but due to fear.
It was not the opposition but a group in the government party itself who took the lead in the rebellion against Mr. Premadasa. Although the impeachment against him proved to be a bogus one and he was able to overcome it, it was able to push him to a position of impotence.
Ms. Kumaratunga has several important lessons to learn from that incident. She does not appear to have learned any of them. She should have known from the very beginning that when she was in the habit of not showing any respect to her Ministers and MPs, there was the possibility of their rising against her when the opportunity came. She should have known that placing selected and trusted colleagues in all important and strategic positions would not prevent a rebellion by her parliamentary party colleagues.
Her second term started at a time when all the conditions were ripe for an internal rebellion. The outcome of the subsequent parliamentary election contributed to worsen the situation. Eventually, what emerged was a weak government, formed by a number of parties brought together with difficulty.
At a time when the internal contradictions of the government were growing, she removed the SLMC leader from the Cabinet. When he and seven others crossed over to the opposition, the government lost even the slender majority it had. At the same time Ms. Kumaratunga got caught in the trap made by the Constitution itself.
This resulted in proroguing Parliament without permitting the no-confidence motion to be debated because it was not possible for her to permit the opposition to form a government if the no-confidence motion was carried out. She knew that if the motion was activated, a group of those who were with her, too, would join her opponents and move towards expelling her. Her assessment of the matter was correct. The attitude of the opposition parties towards her was not conciliatory because her policy towards them was continuously oppressive. The groups who were to join the opposition.
Although she has dissolved Parliament and announced elections, she will, for her own security inevitably do the maximum to prevent the opposition winning the election. However, to the extent that her opponents are oppressed at this election, their opposition to her will grow further. If the opposition wins at this election, the new government, as well as the victorious popular forces, will inevitably take action motivated by a great anger towards the President.
The only way to avoid such an eventuality will be for the President to permit a free and fair election and to give up power without allowing room for a conflict if her forces are defeated. If that happens the conflict that will arise between the two parties will bring the entire political system to a disgraceful position.