Constitution supreme document relating to country’s governance:

People’s sovereignty supreme today

Media and Information Minister Keheliya Rambukwella

“The entire population in a country cannot take part in its adminstration. That is impractical. Therefore, the civilized world searched for a suitable system instead. In ancient times monarchies were established for this purpose. It was the king who took all decisions. His orders were considered divine rulings. We called it feudalism. Even during the feudal era there were some procedures, laws, regulations, customs and traditions.”

Minister Keheliya Rambukwella

“We have passed that age. There were democratic and established traditions of governance even during the feudal period. People revolted against kings who ignored these traditions and deposed them. People revolted against even a powerful king like Mahasen to protest against the destruction he caused to the Maha Viharaya. Finally, the king had to rebuild and restore the Maha Viharaya to its previous position.”

People’s sovereignty

“The feudal system is not seen anywhere in the world now. Today, everything is subservient to the people’s will and sovereignty. There was a semblance of a monarchy in Nepal in South Asia but that too had its downfall recently.”

“As such people’s sovereignty is supreme today. Under the democratic system practised in the world today people elect a group to govern them according to their will. They devise a special system for it which is mostly written down in many countries. This is called the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme document relating to a country’s governance. It is not written down in Great Britain. What they have is a Convention. But we who have been enjoying universal suffrage for 79 years have a written Constitution.”

“It is also the supreme document which enshrines people’s sovereignty. People are above it. Therefore, sovereignty is something above the Constitution. Since Independence we had a Westminster system until 1978. Thereafter a powerful amendment was added changing the Westminster model. Thereafter our Constitution included an Executive Presidency based on a Parliamentary system of Government.”

Institutions

“Accordingly the adminstration was handled by these institutions, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Executive and the Legislature are elected through the people’s vote. Our country has been governed according to an Executive Presidential system for 32 years.”

“Why did we need an Executive President in 1978? Till then the country had experienced a level of development below four percent under various Governments. Sometimes it was less than three percent. The Westminster system failed to provide a supply according to demand in keeping with people’s expectations. Instead what existed was an adminstration subject to strikes and threats and reactionary systems.

“Lee Kwan Yew in his autobiography has said he decided to build the Singapore harbour after witnessing strikes at the Colombo Port during his stay in Colombo.”

“As such we needed a stable Government where we can march towards accelerated development under a stable leader. Needless to say that the election of the Executive President directly by the people leads to a stable Government.

“After 1977 there was rapid development in the country than before. It was under an Executive President that we achieved an economic development rate of six percent for the first time. “It was due to the Executive Presidential system that the 30 year Mahaweli Development Scheme could be telescoped to six years. It was under this system that five reservoirs were built concurrently for the first time after the time of Sinhala Kings. Even today five harbours are being built concurrently and 22 large scale development schemes are underway due to the wonder of the Executive Presidential system.

“Everyone had to concede that there was accelerated development during the 1977-1993 period than the previous era. No one can deny that fact. What people need is a better tomorrow than the present. People have the right to decide which type of Government is best suitable to ensure this.

“There may have been shortcomings in the use of the Executive Presidential system between 1977 and 1993 and thereafter. No one can contest it. But let us try to correct them. Let us conduct a fruitful debate to do it.

“But let us also agree that this system directed the country towards speedy development. There may be shortcomings in our journey. But as a whole the Executive Presidential system is progressive.

“There had been opposition to be Executive Presidential system from the day it was established. That is a feature of our political system. When one Government introduces a system those in the opposition oppose it.

“Therefore the opinion that the Executive Presidency should be changed has become a defeatist slogan of groups which cannot come to power.

“It is only after gaining power that they understand the gravity of acting with responsibility to the people. When you look at it no one likes to set up an unstable government’s under the Westminster system. Mrs Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge governed the country from 1994 to 2000 with a single majority vote in Parliament.

Leadership

President Mahinda Rajapaksa who came to power in 2005 inherited a Parliament with an opposition MP as Speaker. But the President won a 30 year war with the help of that Parliament. Who gave leadership to the country in that accomplishment. It was an Executive President. If is the same Executive President who has directed the country towards accelerated development today.

“There are different opinions and view points. But to the ordinary people who deserve development the Executive Presidency had not been a problem. If it was a problem they would not have visited the polling booths to register 75 percent votes to elect a President.

“When Prabhakaran denied the voting rights of the people in the North and East and banned them from voting, votes polled by all Presidential candidates totalled only 73 percent of registered voters. But this time it was 75 percent.

"Therefore the abolishing of the Executive Presidential system is not a problem to the common masses. However it may be an appetizer for middle class arm chair critics. The desire of the common masses to preserve the Executive Presidential system has almost doubled or trebled after President Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected to power.

Therefore, the majority of people want him to continue in banner. No other political leader has bettered his popularity at the hustings for the second time. That is the truth. J R Jayewardene mustered only 53 percent of votes while Chandrika received 62.25 percent by votes.

Mahinda Rajapaksa received 50.4 percent votes during the first time but he obtained 58 percent during the second time. The total number of votes was 1.8 million.

This shows that his popularity increases with each year. President Rajapaksa cannot abolish the Executive Presidency because the people have not given a mandate to do so. The 'Mahinda Chinthanaya' has not held out a pledge to do so either.

"But the President was amenable to an idea about an Executive Prime Minister expressed by the Opposition Leader recently. But at the Government Parliamentary group workshop held in Beruwala Government MPs spoke in favour of the Executive Presidency described in the Mahinda Chinthana vision for the future accepted by the people. Therefore, the Government cannot shelve that system as it was subject to the most recent mandate received from the people which is a fundamental democratic principle.

"Politics is not static in the modern world. Policies have to get updated and change from time to time.

Certain political parties change their policies due to their long stay in Opposition and the inability of their leaders. It is regrettable to see the UNP in such position today. This is like the story of the fox and the bunch of grapes for them. I challenge the Opposition to find a strong Presidential candidate who can give a tough fight at elections. Try to build a strong leader without trying to hire retired generals.

"Today both the Government and Opposition have only one leader. That is President Mahinda Rajapaksa. That is why there is a long line of people crossing over to the Government from the UNP.

"If a leader brings victory to the country the country in return makes him victorious. If there are term limits on it such limitations should be removed. That is the people's wish. It is this impediment that is being removed by this amendment.

This amendment will also transform the Presidency to one that is answerable to Parliament.

Politics provides arguments for both sides. The Opposition argument is that this will create a dictator. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has been in office for the last 5 years. Had he ever tried to be a dictator? He only destroyed the terrorist dictator Prabhakaran and liberated the country. He also defeated another person with dictatorial tendencies by people's votes at the election. On what basis is a person who liberated the country presumed as a dictator? There is no basis for it.

The argument is that this amendment has powers to make a dictator. We can remember the shooting of those who participated in a Hartal in 1953. There were Ministers who sat on the OICs chair at Police stations and conducted elections. Some people proscribed demonstrations from Moscow. Dodampe Mudalali had a fall from the fourth floor. But there was no Executive Presidency during any of those instances.

During another era underworld thugs were freed from prison and made JPs. Some underworld thugs were in the PSD. Houses of artistes were set ablaze. Their hair was cut and kerosene oil poured on their heads. There was nothing wrong with the system or the power then. That shows the excellence of those who held power. What happened under the incumbent President was the liberation of the country and directing it towards speedy development. There hadn't been a higher rate of development as at present anytime before. Per Capita income has almost doubled in comparision to the period between 1948 and 2005. Had their been a constant rate of development amounting to 6 percent for 3 to 4 years anytime before. Undoubtedly this happened only during the tenure of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

"Therefore opposing views expressed must be just and fair. They should have an acceptable basis rather than a malicious basis. What is important is not the term limit of the President elected to power. What is important is whether he is elected with popular vote after going before the people at an election."

"Therefore there is no question about people's sovereignty. Our Executive President cannot extend his term without going before the people. We are not using the two third majority to extend the term of the President.

"Section 92 of the Constitution deals with the disqualification of a President to continue has term of office. There are various factors including the mental state. It also includes the term limit, that is wrong and what we are doing today is to correct that wrong. Supposing the President defeated LTTE terrorism during the last year of his second term of office would it be justifiable to ask him to retire without giving an opportunity to rebuild the nation. That is why these amendments are most reasonable. If a President can hold office for any number of terms with the people's mandate how can he be called a dictator?

"If provisions for an impeachment are included in the Constitution how can he become a dictator? We know through experience how a President was amenable wen he was from our party and Parliamentary power was in the hands of another party. That Government lost due to the wrongs of the Prime Minister. If he wanted he could have early controlled the President.

"The then President was later proved guilty in a court of law. That allegation was also included in an impeachment. But the legislature did not bring forward that impeachment motion mainly due to the impractical nature of the government's leader.

"I brought these examples to show how the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary are amenable under the present constitution.

"If the legislature actively performed its duties and responsibilities the Executive cannot suppress it. The powers of each of these sectors are mentioned separately in the Constitution.

Executive power in our country has never been dictational. It has become amenable in keeping with the times. The best example is during the 2002-2003 period. People do not need hair splitting arguments. They only desire a better tomorrow. Hasn't President Rajapaksa ensured a better future to the people than what was in 2005? Today the National Flag is flittering in all corners of the country. The whole country is under the writ of the Central government. There are no bomb explosions. There is no fear and suspicion. The whole country is enjoying freedom. Isn't that itself a big change for the better ?

"Poverty has diminished. The economy is stronger than what it was in 2005. That is what the people need and want. They are not bothered about the number of times a President can contest elections.

"Then some question as to why this hurry. There is no hurry. Any political party or government will do things at times which are most beneficial to them. President Jayewardene brought in a Third Amendment to enable him to recontest the Presidential election after four years in office in 1982 and no one questioned then as to why he was in a hurry.

In politics people do things at times most beneficial to them. That is the nature of politics. In recent times it is only the UNP which transformed advantage into disadvantage and the government cannot be blamed for it.

"On the other hand, all mundane people desire to be on the side of a strong government. The President has given that strength to the government. Therefore everyone should support this amendment to the constitution.