• Promise of early PC Elections
• Abolishing Exec. Presidency

Sri Lanka today stands at a constitutional crossroads. More than a decade after the last Provincial Council (PC) Elections were held, the country continues to operate without functioning, elected Provincial bodies, an anomaly in any democracy that claims to value representation, devolution, and accountability.

The delay is no longer a procedural inconvenience. It is a democratic deficit as the current ruling alliance, the NPP repeatedly stressed both at the Presidential Election of September 2024 and the Parliamentary Elections thereafter.

PCs 

PCs, established under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, were designed to bring governance closer to the people. Yet, since 2014, these institutions have effectively ceased to function as elected bodies, with governance transferred to Centrally appointed Governors. 

The core problem is no longer political will alone. It is legal ambiguity. The Election Commission itself has acknowledged that it is completely blocked, unable to proceed without legislative clarity on the electoral framework. 

A Parliamentary Select Committee has now been appointed to re-examine the electoral system for PCs, underscoring the complexity and delay of the process. 

Meanwhile, conflicting signals persist. The Government has indicated intentions to hold elections, yet simultaneously deferred action pending broader constitutional reforms. 

This circular logic is that there are no elections without reform, no reform without elections and it has trapped Sri Lanka in a governance vacuum.

At the heart of the issue lies a deeper question. The Government must categorically state whether it would intend to retain, reform, or abolish the PC system as well as the Executive Presidency.

According to NPP leaders and spokespersons at the JVP Headquarters at Pelawatte, even within the Ruling Coalition itself, there are divergent views. Some advocate for immediate elections to restore democratic legitimacy. Others argue for abolishing the system altogether, dismissing it as inefficient or redundant. This is precisely why a clear constitutional pathway is urgently needed.

A new Constitution or at minimum, a targeted constitutional amendment — must resolve three critical issues. It has to clarify the status of devolution and the powers and functions of PCs or any other unit of devolution that they propose. It has to establish a legally sound, implementable system for elections and timelines and safeguards to ensure that elections cannot be indefinitely postponed again. 

During the last 12 years, we have seen there is a dangerous temptation in policymaking to postpone difficult decisions in favour of appointing commissions or committees to decide on comprehensive reform. A clearly delaying tactic.

A democracy that conducts Presidential and Parliamentary Elections but neglects Provincial ones sends a mixed message about accountability. Second, it weakens governance. PCs are meant to manage critical sectors such as health, education, and local infrastructure. Their absence centralises power and reduces responsiveness.

Third, it complicates reconciliation. Devolution has long been linked to addressing ethnic and regional grievances. The continued suspension of Provincial democracy risks deepening mistrust, particularly in historically marginalised regions.

Sri Lanka does not need to choose between constitutional reform and elections. It needs a sequenced, time-bound approach to introduce an urgent, limited constitutional amendment to remove legal obstacles and enable PC Elections within a fixed timeframe. If the delimitation cannot be completed, the PC Elections can be conducted as Elections under the existing system as an interim measure. Later, it can launch a broader, inclusive constitutional reform process addressing devolution, governance structures, and national integration. This approach avoids paralysis while preserving the space for deeper reform.

Restoring PCs through Elections is not merely an administrative task, it is a constitutional obligation and a moral imperative. Whether through a new Constitution or an urgent amendment, the time to act is now. Anything less risks turning temporary delay into permanent democratic decline.

Exec. Presidency

Since 1994, every elected President, during his or her election campaign promised to abolish the Executive Presidency. The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led alliance which came to power gave a manifesto promise that the Executive Presidency would be abolished by July 1995. Since then, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake also promised to do away with the Executive Presidency, but refrained from giving any time line. The NPP and all its constituent members/parties/organisations have consistently stood for the abolition of the Executive Presidential system. This position has not changed and in fact is included in the NPP manifesto for the proposed new Constitution. The NPP gave the promise that the Party would support any measures to weaken/abolish the Executive Presidency. 

During the decades-long debate over the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems, constitutional experts have stressed many diverse factors. Among the merits of the Executive Presidency, they have pointed out that it has the will of the people as main point as it gives a clear mandate from the people granting a strong legitimacy. Furthermore, it has stability due to a fixed term and it provides decisive leadership during crises. The Presidency is also directly accountability to voters rather than the party machinery.

The main criticism levelled against the Executive Presidency is that it could lead to authoritarianism and the over-centralisation of power. There could also be contradictions on interests when one party holds the Executive Presidency while the Opposition controls the parliament as Sri Lanka witnessed in 2001.Although there is a constitutional provision to impeach the President, the process is a long-drawn, politically charged process that could hinder smooth governance in a country. Another drawback is that the system can marginalise smaller political parties.

The advantages in the Prime Ministerial system include flexibility to change leadership without General Elections. It has strong accountability through regular Parliamentary questioning and encourages consensus-building in multi-party systems. The Westminster Prime Ministerial system also ensures easier coordination between the Legislature and the Executive.

The Westminster Prime Ministerial system has many disadvantages as leadership changes can be decided by small party caucuses, not the public. That could cause instability in coalition Governments. Furthermore, weak separation of powers can lead to Executive dominance over Parliament. The Premier’s mandate is indirect, reliant on party support.

Sri Lanka introduced the Executive Presidency in 1978, consolidating substantial power in one office — from direct election authority to influence over Parliament, the Judiciary, and the public service. The first concrete step to curb Presidential power by establishing independent commissions and restoring certain checks and balances was done in 2015, under the 19th Amendment. However, seven years later, in 2020, the 20th Amendment was passed to reverse many of those reforms, shifting power back towards the Presidency, drawing significant criticism. Within two years, the 21st Amendment has restored some of the 19th Amendment reforms and re-empowered Parliament by reducing the Presidential authority.

On the eve of the Presidential Election in September 2024, most political analysts, scholars, activists, and civic groups issued a public appeal urging Presidential candidates to commit to abolishing the Executive Presidency within a year of Parliament convening. Leading political parties including the NPP and the SJB have endorsed the abolition, calling it essential for deep democratic reforms.

Two leading candidates at the 2024 Presidential Election, Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa pledged to abolish the Executive Presidency and restore Parliamentary democracy. Shortly after his victory, NPP spokesperson Sunil Handunnetti declared: "You have elected the final Executive President of this country... We seek the public’s backing to achieve this significant reform".

Currently, President Dissanayake’s administration is championing comprehensive constitutional reform, aiming for a new Constitution with a non-Executive President, a new electoral system, and greater devolution of powers.

The Constitution defines the mechanisms for the abolition of the Executive Presidency by a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds Parliamentary majority and a national referendum.

Although the NPP’s two third majority in Parliament empowers them to enact constitutional amendments, it is prudent to ensure inclusivity across parties and communities to enhance legitimacy.

President Dissanayake reiterated at a media interview after getting elected that his Government was committed to abolition. However, he also stressed that it should be accompanied by electoral reform such as changing proportional representation to make Parliament more representative and to ensure that different shades of opinion and communities are proportionally represented.

From past experiences, it is evident that if a Government genuinely wants to establish a new Constitution or to enact any important amendments, it has to take action immediately after coming to power. Any delay would reflect a tactic to delay the process.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication