Font size:

The well-known lawyer and former minister, Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha, said in an interview with the Sri Lankan publication Lakbima: “I relinquished my ministerial position because I was not allowed to exercise my powers…The appointment of ministers is a hoax.” He added, "It is also the same for the 109 ministers who are still there. The president has the powers. In short, most ministers do not have any say in the appointment of chairmen and directors to institutions. The situation is like that at 99 percent of ministries.”

Those who are appointed by the president are always above the minister, Rajapaksha said. “That is a humiliation of the ministerial portfolio. I also suffered that humiliation. The present Rajapaksa regime is a one-man-show."

This statement about the president is no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the Constitution that was introduced in 1978. The whole purpose of that Constitution was to create a one-man show while maintaining the facade of the separation of powers and a president working with a team of ministers. The weakness of the 1978 Constitution was to create a one-man system which, in fact, is not workable.

What has been witnessed during the last few days – as the government has refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to cut taxes and reduce oil prices – is a clash between the one-man show and the judiciary. The two are somehow incompatible. Therefore, in the days to come the executive president will most likely try to make the judiciary play a complementary role within the one-man show.

The claim that the 1978 Constitution was based on the Gaullist model of the French Constitution has proven false. The late Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, a former minister, lawyer and member of Parliament, stated that this Constitution was not based on any great tradition but is very similar to the one created by Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic.

In fact, the aim of the 1978 Constitution was to create a one-man show relating to all the branches of government – the executive, legislature and judiciary. The separation of powers in a real sense is incompatible with the Constitution. The executive president needs to be able to control the whole show, including the legislature and the judiciary, to run this show with any success.

In 1978 the first executive president, J.R. Jayewardene, had full control over Parliament as his party had over 80 percent of the seats. However, as the term of that Parliament was ending he realized that in an election he would not have the same majority. The new Constitution introduced proportional representation, making it virtually impossible for any single political party to have an overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats.

Seeing that his power would be diminished if he could not have his way with the Parliament, the president went with a referendum calling for an extension of the terms of the members for six more years. By manipulating the electoral system he was able to achieve his aims.

However, since the end of that second term no president has had such a majority in Parliament. Instead, the president has controlled Parliament by buying and silencing the elected members.

The purpose of having a large number of ministers – 105 at the last count – is to keep them from leaving the government and joining the opposition. It is no surprise that these ministers have no power. They are made ministers solely for the purpose of keeping the executive president in power.

It was not possible, however, to bring the judiciary under complete control of the executive president. The first chief justice under this system, Neville Samarakoon, rebelled against the scheme quite early. After his retirement the rebellion subsided, but severe underlying tensions remained.

President Chandrika Bandaranaike tried to resolve this by appointing a person of her choice when she became president. This worked to some extent for several years. However, the inner tension between the executive and the judiciary still remained. Later even Bandaranaike’s appointee openly clashed with her. Now there is an open clash between the existing executive president and the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court gave an order to reduce petrol prices last week, the executive president told the nation that fuel prices are the means by which the government receives an income to run the war and all essential services. A huge propaganda campaign is being carried out to demonstrate that the government’s very survival depends on keeping fuel prices high. Thus, attempts to reduce fuel prices have been portrayed as a conspiracy to overthrow the government.

As part of the propaganda campaign against the judgment the president speaks of recognizing the separation of powers, but at the same time states that as elected representative, it is the business of the executive alone to run the government. The implication is that the decision against the executive is, in fact, outside the scope of the judiciary. The separation of powers is interpreted in such a way that the three branches should cooperate in running the country.

The only real alternative for the country is to end the one-man show by changing the 1978 Constitution. However, the electoral process does not allow anybody the required absolute majority to amend the Constitution. What is required is a new Constitution, but there is no way to bring about such a constitutional change.

Therefore the 1978 Constitution and the one-man show will remain by default, and as long as this is the case serious clashes with the judiciary are inevitable. This is why there are many pressures to subdue the courts and make them play a subservient role to the executive president.

The constitutional crisis faced by the country is serious. However, none of the opposition parties or civil society is ready to face this crisis. The inevitable result is that the period of instability will not only continue but worsen.

The only way a government can rule under these circumstances is to divert the attention of the nation to a serious threat. Ever since 1978 some form of internal conflict was necessary for the government to divert attention from the serious constitutional crisis in which it has been caught. Gradually the wars against the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam became very useful in keeping the people disturbed enough to forget about the actual crisis of the state system.

In fact, the belligerent approach of the LTTE has made possible the survival of the 1978 constitutional scheme. The weakening of the LTTE due to the war effort may be seen by the government, in retrospect, as a threat to its own survival. It may have to create a new enemy if the LTTE completely falls.

--

(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia. His blog can be read at http://srilanka-lawlessness.com.)