There are many political systems in the world. The political system
of Sri Lanka, which was subjected to numerous changes since
the independence ranging from socialism to neo-liberalism, reflected the
mindset of the politicians who were doubtful as to what should be the system to
govern Sri Lankans. One of the most controversial changes happened to Sri
Lankan politics was the introduction of the post of Executive Presidency. By
being the supreme leader who holds the reins of both the state and the
government, he has enormous power vested in him. There is an ongoing debate on
the role of citizenry in an executive presidential system.
The second republican constitution had introduced the executive
presidency to Sri Lanka. It was mainly adopted from the executive of France and
the United States. Late president Jayawardena was expecting a strong unbound
leadership who can make firm decisions to bring the country to prosperity. It
also came as an answer for the political instability plaguing the country.
Sri Lankan executive president is both the chief of the state and
the leader of the government. Although according to the constitution, he is
responsible for only the executive powers, indirectly he is like a giant
octopus whose tentacles spread all over the executive, legislature and judiciary
of the country. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the leader of
the cabinet and the supreme authority who shapes the foreign policy.
Every countryneeds a strong leadership who can take quick and firm
decisions. That need is more prominent in developing countries like Sri Lanka.
When the decision makers of the country engaged with bitter rivalry and prone
to interference from partisan politics and political pressure groups,
opportunities to take unpopular decisions which give benefits in the long run
will be lost. In emergency situations, executive presidential powers will
decide whether the country survives or falls into anarchy.United States and France
are good examples that show how executive presidency can steer a country in a
stable and progressive way.
With great power comes great responsibility. The main hitch in
executive presidency is the possibility of the president becoming corrupted by
the power. That’s why although most of the presidential candidates come to
power by promising to abolish the executive presidency, when they get elected,
try to secure more and more powers without adhering to their promise.Appointing
family members to important administrative positions, politicization of the
civil service, corruptions, interfering with the judiciary are some of the
immediate consequences of the executive acting like a dictator.
A country needs a leader who is accountable to people. Absolute
power in governing a country should never be given to a person without proper
methods to control them. In conclusion I believe in the need of a more
controlled and accountable executive for our country.
