By Chanakya
Few political promises in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history have been repeated as often, and broken as consistently, as the pledge to abolish the Executive Presidency.
For nearly three decades, politicians from across the political spectrum have campaigned on promises to dismantle or significantly curtail the powers of the office. Election manifestos, constitutional reform agendas, and public speeches have repeatedly portrayed the Executive Presidency as the source of excessive concentration of power, weakened institutional checks and balances, and political instability. Yet despite these commitments, the institution remains firmly intact.
The question that confronts the public today is simple: if almost every major political party has, at one time or another, acknowledged the need for abolition, why has it never happened?
The answer lies not in constitutional complexity alone but in political convenience.
Time and again, parties have championed abolition while in opposition, only to become less enthusiastic once they gain access to the very powers they once criticised. The Executive Presidency has proven to be a political paradox. Leaders condemn it as undemocratic when they are outside its reach but often embrace its authority once they occupy the office or become beneficiaries of its influence.
Unbroken cycle
This cycle has contributed significantly to public cynicism about political reform. Voters have repeatedly been asked to support candidates who promise constitutional change, only to witness those promises delayed, diluted, or abandoned altogether after elections.
The Executive Presidency was introduced in 1978 with the intention of providing strong and stable leadership. Supporters argued that a directly elected president would ensure decisive governance and prevent political paralysis. Critics, however, warned from the outset that concentrating extensive powers in a single office could weaken democratic institutions and undermine accountability.
Over the years, both sides of that debate have found evidence to support their arguments. The presidency has, at times, enabled governments to make swift decisions during periods of conflict and crisis. Yet it has also been associated with concerns about excessive executive authority, weakened parliamentary oversight, politicisation of state institutions, and the erosion of checks and balances.
Successive constitutional amendments have attempted to address these concerns. Some reforms have sought to reduce presidential powers and strengthen independent commissions, while others have restored or expanded executive authority. The result has been a constitutional tug-of-war rather than a definitive resolution of the issue.
What is particularly striking is the broad political consensus that appears to exist in principle. Few constitutional reform proposals over the last two decades have avoided discussing the need to reconsider the Executive Presidency. Civil society groups, constitutional experts, and many political leaders have argued that a more accountable parliamentary system would better serve democratic governance.
Yet consensus in principle has never translated into consensus in action.
Challenges in constitutional reform
Part of the challenge lies in the complexity of constitutional reform itself. Abolishing the Executive Presidency would require significant constitutional changes, political agreement across party lines, and potentially public approval through a referendum. These are not simple tasks. However, complexity alone cannot explain decades of inaction.
The larger obstacle has often been political will.
When constitutional reform becomes subordinate to short-term electoral calculations, long-term institutional change becomes difficult to achieve. Political leaders may recognise the flaws of the system but hesitate to surrender powers that could prove advantageous to their own administrations.
The delay has consequences beyond constitutional theory. It affects public trust in politics itself. Each unfulfilled pledge reinforces the perception that constitutional reform is used more as a campaign slogan than as a genuine commitment. Over time, repeated failures to deliver on such promises erode confidence in democratic institutions and weaken faith in political leadership.
The debate over the Executive Presidency is ultimately not only about one office. It is about accountability, institutional balance, and the credibility of political promises. Whether one supports abolition or reform, there is a growing expectation that the issue should be addressed through a clear and transparent national conversation rather than postponed indefinitely.
Sri Lanka’s political history is filled with promises to abolish the Executive Presidency. What remains absent is the determination to see those promises through. Until that changes, the abolition of the Executive Presidency will remain one of the country’s longest-running constitutional commitments – perpetually promised, perpetually deferred.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication.
Leave a comment