4 December 2023 12:02 am Views - 424
And Separation of Powers….. Cannot be Interpreted
Cricket still takes up valuable Parliamentary time. Before we delve into today’s main topic, let’s spare a few lines for the ‘Game.’The legendary Dr. W.G. Grace was known for his
Sagala, helped by Roshan’s coach, stumped him to Ranil’s Googly: The coach’s poor intellect and personal agenda left the ‘batsman’ unprepared. His failed attempt to, ‘step out of the crease’ and hit a six over the bowler’s head, might have been influenced by the erratic coaching. The lack of readiness to return to the crease after the missed shot resulted in a smart stumping by the attentive wicket-keeper. Did he get carried away and lost his head?The intricacies and demands of the sport, like footwork and eye-hand coordination in cricket exceed challenges of navigating school gates in driving a bus, let alone eloquent oratory.
The ‘coach’ is anticipated to clinch the Presidential stakes in 2024, yet the question looms: will he elevate Roshan, relegated to a mere ‘spare part’ of SJB, to the role of Sports Minister in a SJB cabinet?
Glorious uncertainties in cricket and politics? Harin is back, and he has prepared the pitch observing the rules. It’s about how you played, not just who won or lost.
Three pillars: Sanctified Doctrine, needs Separation and Honour
The system of checks and balances among the three branches of government—Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary—is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy. This oversight ensures that no branch becomes too powerful and that each acts within its constitutional boundaries.
Defining abstract doctrine of “separation of powers” or phenomena like “life” itself presents formidable challenges, as evident from NASA’s committee of intellectuals that failed to define ‘LIFE’ conclusively
This system, traced back to ancient and medieval theories, ensures checks and balances within governance. Successive presidents have reshaped it according to their preferences. The 1978 Constitution notably centralized power within the executive presidency, sparking ongoing discussions about how to curtail the executive president’s authority and achieve a more balanced distribution of power among the three branches. This departure from the democratic principle and the intended purpose of a constitution is a cause for concern.
The establishment of the Constitutional Council [CC] in 2001 was a strategic move aimed at limiting the president’s unilateral authority in crucial appointments. Through the creation of the CC, the intention was to transfer the power of these appointments away from the president’s sole discretion. The Council was specifically assigned the responsibility of supervising and endorsing these appointments, highlighting the importance of consensus and collaborative decision-making in the selection of vital positions.
President Gotabaya asked Members of Parliament to take on the premiership, but they wavered, leading to an unexpected consequence. Ultimately, the task landed on Ranil [rejected], who took charge amid tumultuous political and economic challenges in a financially strained country. With confidence, he navigated the nation toward stability, averting disaster and chaos. His recent announcement of a Parliamentary Select Committee to probe delays attributed to the Council sheds light on issues affecting police functioning and court proceedings, which have encountered significant obstacles due to the lack of approvals. Specifically, the President highlighted the Council’s failure to endorse his nominee for the Supreme Court and his persistent requests to extend the tenure of the current Inspector General of Police (IGP) beyond the retirement age.
Rather than a precise definition, the essence lies in respecting the concept/doctrine and honouring the dignity of Three Branches within the State
The President hastily appeared in the House to counter Member of Parliament M. A. Sumanthiran PC’s perspective on the relationship between the Constitutional Council [CC] and the Three Pillars during the subsequent Parliament session. The President’s argument relied on the Constitution’s categorization, positioning the CC under the jurisdiction of the Executive President [EP]. This implication of a subservient or subordinate role for the CC under the EP’s authority is considered unacceptable within the constitutional framework.
It’s shocking to witness someone like Wickremasinghe, recognized for his strong liberal democratic values and distinguished political acumen in Southeast Asia, engaging in mundane discussions within Parliament.
The 20th Amendment significantly enhanced the powers of the executive president, consolidating considerable authority within that office. Subsequently, the 21st Amendment was introduced to address this issue, aiming to amend the powers vested in the executive presidency. Interestingly, it’s a notable trend that nearly every incoming president, influenced by their perception of the executive presidency, tends to introduce amendments to the constitution. It’s a recurring pattern that incoming leaders often pledge to eliminate the executive presidency during their election campaigns, albeit R Premadasa in the past. However, once in power, they tend to maintain or even enhance these executive powers rather than fulfilling their commitment to reducing them.
The JVP, which historically advocated for the abolition of the executive presidency, has notably become quieter about this issue in recent times, especially when they sense a potential opportunity to assume the presidency. This perception of opportunism and hypocrisy can undermine public trust in political actors, highlighting the need for consistent and principled approaches.
There was a broad consensus across various parties that the powers vested in the executive needed to be restricted or curtailed. The administration that succeeded Kumaratunga was led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, who significantly undermined the provisions of the 17th Amendment. Ultimately, in 2010, the government passed the 18th Amendment, effectively abolishing the 17th Amendment. This move dismantled several of the checks and balances initially put in place, marking a notable shift in the country’s governance structure and consolidating more power within the executive presidency.
The disregard or manipulation of a constitutional framework strikes at the core of the principles that uphold a stable and just system of governance. When such actions take place, it’s not merely a reflection on the Parliament but on the entire political system. It indicates a substantial erosion of ethical standards and a departure from the foundational values cherished in the constitution.
Defining abstract doctrine of “separation of powers” or phenomena like “life” itself presents formidable challenges, as evident from NASA’s committee of intellectuals that failed to define ‘LIFE’ conclusively. Rather than a precise definition, the essence lies in respecting the concept/doctrine and honouring the dignity of Three Branches within the State. The separation of powers intends to prevent one branch from accumulating excessive authority, emphasizing the need for balance and collaboration among branches. It’s about recognizing their unique functions while fostering harmony to uphold the system’s integrity.
The freelance columnist can be reached at- kksperera1@gmail.com