Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa failed disastrously because, instead of acting as an executive president as soon as he was elected, he concentrated on getting excessive power through parliament, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe, Emeritus Professor of Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, said. He offered insights on the prevailing situation in the country in an interview with Udara Soysa. While talking about the political leadership of the acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe he suspected that “Rajapaksa loyalists in parliament to have Ranil elected President seems further evidence of the connivance that has allowed corruption to flourish.”
by Udara Soysa
Excerpts;
Question: How do you see the present political climate in Sri Lanka?
Answer: A very worrying situation, springing not just from the multiple abuses of the last ten years, but the continuation of the legislature as a tool of the executive. The failure of our intellectuals to have challenged the illogicality of an executive presidential system that rooted the executive in parliament speaks volumes for the failure too of civil society.
 |
| Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe |
Hence the confusion about changing the system by tossing power like a tennis ball from one member of the executive to another, whereas what we need is the strengthening of the non-executive portion of parliament through giving them complete control of committees, including in particular those concerned with accountability.
Q: Did Gotabaya fail? If so what are the root causes of such failure?
A. He failed disastrously because, instead of acting as an executive president as soon as he was elected, he concentrated on getting excessive power through parliament. Hence populist measures to increase the votes of his party, with nothing constructive with regard to infrastructure for development, including the education reforms we need and the encouragement of investment. Instead, he left finance in the hands of the rent seekers who had destroyed the earlier Rajapaksa regime, with the previous government also then being obsessed with making money and winning elections which destroyed the reform ideals with which it had come in.
Q. How do you see the arrival of Ranil to the political leadership?
A. It was a triumph of self-seeking cynicism over both democratic principles and practicalities. It seems to confirm what was long suspected, that he and the Rajapaksas had a mutually beneficial relationship, and the anxiety of the Rajapaksa loyalists in parliament to have Ranil elected President seems further evidence of the connivance that has allowed corruption to flourish.
Q. What are some of your views on a course that can be taken for reforms and recovery?
A. There should first be changes in standing orders, on the lines proposed in 2015 (and stopped by the sudden dissolution of parliament) to remove members of the executive from involvement in the monitoring functions of the legislature. There should be entrenchment of specific limited cabinet positions and the allocation to them of departments to stop musical chairs, and there should be provision to prevent any appointments being made to vital public service positions unless reasons are given in writing. The main controlling body for appointments should not have ministers or their choices but be half parliamentarians and half outsiders, all elected by the parliament on the STV system, to ensure wider representation.
And the Assets Declarations of all those in public life should be available on relevant websites, with provision to challenge, and penalties for non-compliance or false declarations or incapacity to explain unusual wealth.
Q. Where do you see the future of aragayala?
A. If we emerge from the current mess with a new set of leaders, aragalaya should accept the result but the new executive should give them prominence in a Trust and Reconciliation and Restoration Commission, which will go into the corruption of the last decade and ensure restorative justice. This should be separate from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with regard to the war which should have been appointed immediately afterwards as Mahinda Rajapaksa had indicated he would do, before he was taken possession of by those who wanted to profit from the end of war instead of promoting peace.
Post a Comment