Left will vote against extending President’s term

The left parties of the UPFA alliance have come out strongly against the proposal to remove the term limit on the executive presidency, calling for a complete abolition of the system instead. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, secretary of the Democratic Left Front, says the left will be obliged to vote against the amendment in parliament.
Excerpts:

by Namini Wijedasa

Why are the left parties of the UPFA concerned about a proposal to remove the term limit on the executive presidency?

This is not only a concern of left parties but of all sections in society, particularly the different parties that constitute the UPFA. We will take for granted that the UNP, JVP and the general (Fonseka) would in any event take up these issues on a rival basis, unconditionally opposing any proposition from the government. This has to be distinguished from the concerns that we, who are of the government, have about the propositions regarding constitutional changes.

But why are you opposing a proposal emanating from the president that heads your alliance?

We have for a long time committed ourselves to a change of the system from a presidential to a parliamentary government. We all know that the president’s position is above parliament. Although parliament has certain powers regarding the office of the president, they are minimal or unworkable or really mere expressions of possibilities rather than reality of being transformed into anything material or worthwhile. Parliament has power to control finances and can therefore prevent any finances being voted for any purpose or objective which includes that of the president’s office. But that does not happen in any way because the president and government are one and the same. So the president is above the parliament because the president’s decisions or directives ultimately are being accepted by the government group whose position as MPs is mainly dependant on the decision of the president. From the time the members are elected or become candidates, they are bound by the president’s will and the president’s discretion. The government that becomes elected is naturally a product of the president’s choice. On the other hand, the cabinet of ministers lead the parliamentary group with ministers being appointed by the president.

What about the power of parliament to impeach the president?

The impeachment procedure is an impossibility as far as the practical aspects are concerned. When you take the entire structure in combination it’s obvious that the president stands above the parliament and his presence in parliament is at his will.

Are you speaking on behalf of the left parties?

I’m speaking on behalf of the left parties and all democratic sections that do not accept and endorse this presidential system.

Are you, in effect, opposing another term for President Mahinda Rajapaksa?

We are loyal to him, we have faith in him and we have confidence in him. But the fact is that a single person–if it’s not Mahinda, it will be another–who will ultimately decide the fate of millions of people in this country together with the parliamentary majority which he commands...unless there is a revolt from the majority of parliament, particularly the members of the government, which is the remotest thing that could happen notwithstanding the circumstances. This is a dangerous, undemocratic system. Even though the president is elected, the elected legislature and elected members are subordinate.

What alternative do you propose?

What we urge is to keep the elected members who are of equal status to that of the president insofar as the representative character is concerned of being voted by the people. We could have a combined level of interaction which happens when one of the members becomes a prime minister. But we can always have a prime minister who is not necessarily a member of parliament as a transitional provision, to make it possible for this president to occupy the position as the first prime minister who becomes appointed under the changed system. We can give him all the powers except that of immunity. It is in the course of history that everything will get into its place. As we know, some prime ministers have been more powerful than others by reason of their personalities, their leadership and stature while certain other prime ministers have played a very much lesser role or more collective roles together with others in the legislature. Leaving that as a possibility, we propose that the president becomes the executive prime minister and takes his seat in parliament. And the change can be effected by the constitutional reforms converting the presidency to that of the prime ministry while vesting him with all the powers he presently enjoys except immunity.

Have you made these proposals to the UPFA?

The proposals have been made at more than one discussion and thereafter presented in written form.

What has been the response?

The response is that a discussion has been initiated by this position we took up and there are variations that have come into the scope of the discussion. Certain sections, I don’t want to identify them, say, well, we don’t mind the term limit being removed and the president being given the right to continue, contesting even elections beyond the second term provided he would be bound to parliament and be a part of parliament. Some sections say they are willing to consider an extension of the term provided he would relinquish immunity. There are others who say that if this is endorsed at a referendum, they do not mind his term being extended.

Are these formal discussions?

Not formal discussions. These are what we hear as we go along from different sections about their respective responses.

Is it not worrisome that there are no formal discussions?

Well, a formal discussion can come about only when such a discussion is convened by the president. That only shows the exclusive power which a president exercises even in summoning a discussion of the group of which he is the leader.

Was the president hostile towards the left parties at a meeting summoned by the UPFA to discuss constitutional change?

The party leaders of the UPFA met twice regarding these issues, including proposed changes to the electoral system and a restructuring of the 17th amendment to make it workable. There was no hostility or anger on the part of anybody, including the president, but a frank and good discussion regarding the different positions.

What is the next step in this debate within the UPFA?

It’s not a debate. It’s a discussion within the UPFA. Even within the SLFP, there are possibly informal discussions going on among members, not as groups but one-to-one. There could be similar discussions about how this should be resolved. We (left parties) have still not looked at the ultimate stage of this process, when it comes to the actual amendment of the constitution-when it will be in the House and when the numbers will have to be found.

What is the final position of the left parties on this matter?

Due to our principled position, the left parties cannot endorse this proposal and we have an obligation to vote against it.

How far will you stick to this position?

As long as it is possible.

That is a very open-ended answer. Could you be more specific? Does it mean as long as you are told to leave the government?

It could mean many things. As long as it is possible, we will hold on to this position. We have not prefaced the ultimate stage... what we do or what we will have to do in certain circumstances, etcetera.

Are you taking your message to the public?

The discussion has spread out. This is obviously having an effect as monitored by the government. We are already holding seminars with a constitutional lawyer and leaders of the four left parties.