SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 23,2014 Have fixed day for elections

APresidential proclamation has been made this week calling for a Presidential election which will be held on January 8, 2015. There is great debate on the eligibility of the incumbent President contesting a third consecutive time. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court opinion giving the predictable thumbs up for the President to contest, the intention of the controversial 18th Amendment was clearly to allow the incumbent to come forward again clearing the two-term hurdle.

In the flush of President Mahinda Rajapaksa's victory in 2010, his opponent hounded, court-martialled and jailed and the mainstream Opposition engaged in their own pitiful internecine squabbles, the President had a free run with the 18A. Apologist ministers are now showing remorse and asking the people for forgiveness for raising their hands for such a dastardly act.

The two-term limit is a debatable issue. On the one hand, it is meant to prevent a slide into authoritarianism and it must be said that signs of such a slide are very evident in Sri Lanka today. The United States, France, Russia, Iran and countries with the Presidential system of government have faithfully stuck to this principle. China, whose President is elected by the Communist Party hierarchy also has term limits.

The Russian President Vladimir Putin did some gymnastics in becoming Prime Minister in his third term and still ran the country to become President again but even he didn't undermine the two-term principle. In Sri Lanka, too, this strategy was thought of at one stage but never implemented. There is no bar to the President contesting thrice provided it is not consecutively.

On the other hand, the argument has been that if a Prime Minister can be the Head of Government thrice or more consecutively, why not a President as long as it is the wish of the people. A Prime Ministerial dictatorship can be as bad.

As we have said before, it was the second segment of the 18A that dealt a kidney punch to democracy in this country with independent, autonomous institutions viz., the Judiciary, the Police, the Public Service and Elections Department being politicised by coming under the writ of a partisan Executive President.

Opposition parties have not been able to come to terms with how to handle this situation. They are torn between sections wanting to challenge, possibly boycott the forthcoming election on the footing that it is not only illegitimate but also illegal and another saying they want to ask the people to decide the fate of the Executive Presidency. The one minus factor for the President in all this is the fact that in his election manifestos past, he pledged to abolish the Executive Presidency - and did not honour his own pledge to the people. One has to wait and see what he has to say a third time round on the subject, especially when the Opposition this week declared that it would abolish the system withing 100 days if elected to office. Like some of his predecessors, the incumbent President, now that he has experienced it at first hand, thinks it is not such a bad thing to retain, in fact, a very good thing for the country to have.

This premature election called for in January by the President not only caught the joint Opposition on the wrong foot, but also the country off guard. It was time, therefore, for a re-think on the prevailing ad-hoc way of holding these elections. The US system of fixed dates for Presidential elections does not throw the country into a frenzy depending on what the stars portend and the guessing game is not a national pastime.

Should the Presidential system be abolished, having fixed dates for Parliamentary elections is also not a bad idea to consider in whatever constitutional reforms that are being envisaged by the country's political leaders.