President J.R.Jayewardene who was concerned, as many of his other contemporary political leaders were, about finding a political system that suited the needs of the country and aspirations of the people for stability of governments and rapid economic progress, proposed the establishment of a strong executive as far back as 1966. He made his case for such a system in the course of a speech he made at the 22nd annual session of the Association for the Advancement of Science thus: “Our cabinet, the executive government, is chosen from the legislature and throughout its life is dependent on its maintaining a majority therein. We have followed the British Constitution in this respect. In some countries, the executive is chosen directly by the people and it is not dependent on the legislature during the period of its existence. The USA is an example of the latter. The new French Constitution is a combination of the British and the American system. Such an executive is a strong executive, seated in power for a fixed number of years, not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature, not afraid to take correct and unpopular decisions because of censure from its parliamentary party. This seems to me a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced with today.”         

Afterwards, he continued with his advocacy of the system and made an attempt at getting the proposed system adopted in 1972 at the time of framing of the First Republican Constitution. He submitted a resolution to the Constituent Assembly for this purpose. Incidentally, this action by JRJ demolishes the continuing contention that it was his ambitious intention to give himself and his party the advantage of the system, because if his resolution had been adopted  Sirimavo Bandaranaike would have been the first executive president.

Some sections allege that the present system was created without the consent of the people. They seem to be ignorant or wittingly overlook that the system was established after a specific mandate was obtained for the purpose by the UNP at the 1977 general election. After the system was adopted, first through an amendment to the existing 1972 Constitution, it was written into the present constitution at the time of its promulgation. Since then the system was subjected to much discussion and debate. However, during the series of by-elections that followed and the 1982 presidential election, the debate revolved around the question whether the country should get back to the 1972 First Republican Constitution or continue with the new system. The victory of the UNP at these elections silenced, to some extent, the critics of the new constitution.

But the controversy over the executive presidency and the proportional representative system that were incorporated in the constitution did not cease to be controversial. Many promises were given by different parties and many MOUs signed for the complete abolition or modification of the executive presidential system. But none was fulfilled. The last in this series of promises was the one given to the JVP by President Mahinda Rajapaksa.    

It is often argued by some that the executive presidency is akin to a dictatorship. But it is a misconception. Dictatorship is an absolute rule of a person or group without the necessity of the consent of the governed. The executive president has no power to frame laws, he has no veto power – as enjoyed by the US President - , he is responsible to parliament although he is not answerable to it and he has to depend on funds voted by parliament for his existence. The immunity from law suits he has, is limited only to the period he holds office.   

The creation of the executive presidency, above all, marked a radical departure from the Westminster model and paved the way for further evolution of a political system that suits the current needs of the country. So, what is necessary today is to make an objective and careful examination by a competent committee of the operation of the system during the past three decades to ascertain whether the objectives set out have been achieved and whether the country lost or gained as a result of this system, before taking a decision on its fate. It should not be left in the hands of politicians who, more often than not, are moved by political expediency. Whatever the system decided upon, it should be able to eliminate contentious politics and make consensual politics possible.  

[Source: The Daily Mirror]