I refer to the letter of Mr. A.R.M.T.B. Ratnayake in defence of the President, making excuses for the jumbo-sized cabinet of 44 ministers she appointed as necessary to set up a government. But is it really necessary for the Executive President under the constitution to buy parliamentary support to set up a government? There are presidential systems of government in U.S.A and France where the president is from one party while a different political party dominates the parliament or congress. This is a common feature in both USA and France. How does it work?

The Sri Lankan President cannot be removed from office except on a motion of impeachment, which has to be passed by a two third majority in parliament. Impeachment also involves charges and trial by the Supreme Court. If a president has not given any room for bringing impeachment proceedings against him/her there is no way in which he or she can be removed. The impeachment process is in practice a political process rather than a proceeding to be decided on its merits. Defeat on a vote of no confidence does no damage to the President although the Prime Minister and the cabinet will fall if the government is defeated on a money bill. So it is the Prime Minister who must command the support of the House. If the government is defeated in parliament, the President is obliged to appoint someone else as prime minister who commands the majority support in parliament. If the UNP leader declines to accept the post of Prime Minister, the President couldcall upon someone else to form the government who can clobber together a coalition.

Things don’t really have to go so far if the President acts prudently and avoids controversial legislation, or, better still, agrees on a legislative programme with the opposition and refrains from introducing controversial legislation. The same considerations would apply to the budget or any other revenue measure. In short, the President would have to make compromises as the presidents in USA or France do. This is not a bad thing since we have had enough of one-man or one-woman shows.

Mr. Ratnayake defence is that whatever bargain the President makes with small parties to set up a government should be accepted because some government is better than no government at all. But as pointed out above the choice is not exactly that. A coalition government can be formed which commands the support of the parliament. The people don’t have to accept any horsedeals however unfair and unjust or costly. No Sir, according to our ancient political traditions (never mind Western political traditions) the "artha" (the pursuit of power and prosperity) must be subject to "dharma" (the moral law). The ruler whether president or minister should not violate the moral law. If the king is so, so are the people is an ancient Indian saying. The ruler is expected to lead by example by governing according to the moral law. All others exercising authority, be they policemen, public officers or university administrators are similarly obliged to exercise his/her power in accordance with the moral law. In the Arthasastra, I understand the king is reminded of his duties and of the consequences of his failing to perform them. "In the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the king and in what is beneficial to the subjects is beneficial to him." To inculcate in the king a sense of duty an elaborate training course is specified which includes training in the control of the senses, the need to overcome lust, anger, pride, arrogance and foolhardiness. " Power is trust and the resources of the state are to be used for the benefit of the people not to be distributed as largesse to obtain or retain power.

We are today witnessing the deterioration of morality in society. Rape and murder are commonplace. The offenders are violating not only the criminal law but also the moral law, whatever religion they belong to. They are enough excuses to make for themselves like poverty, broken families, alcohol, drugs etc. but we know that they must accept individual responsibility for their crimes. It is this sense of personal responsibility that we lack today. So please don’t make excuses for moral lapses of people in authority.

R. M. B. Senanayake