When the late Mr. Premadasa was prime minister during the J.R. Jayewardene presidency, he publicly complained that this post did not even have the power of a peon! Now we have President Rajapaksa bemoaning that the position of the country’s executive president has been reduced to less than that of a magistrate. While it is true that no specific powers are reposed in the prime ministry in terms of the 1978 constitution that prevails, Premadasa with characteristic dynamism gave the post the visibility that helped advance his ascent to the presidency. Knowing what he could and did do wearing the prime minister’s hat, simultaneously holding on to his local government and urban development portfolio, he contrived to appoint the unambitious D.B. Wijetunge to be his prime minister overlooking people like Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake who had themselves aspired to the impotent prime ministry that Premadasa assumed.

Dr. A.C. Viswalingam, the indefatigable President of Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG), who continues to speak loud and clear on issues of governance despite the lamentable lack of results, has in a statement prominently displayed in yesterday’s The Island made the very valid point that the president and his ministers belong to the executive branch while magistrates belong to the judicial branch on which the judicial power of the people have been reposed. The president has to do his job while the magistrates and the rest of the judiciary must do theirs. Our constitution is clearly and unambiguously – at least in that regard - based on the doctrine of the separation of powers. It provides for the executive, and a very powerful executive at that, the legislature and the judiciary, each branch having their own defined functions.

While the executive might not be happy about some recent judgments (and overjoyed about others), it would be good if President Mahinda Rajapaksa does not forget that at least one past determination prevented, to his benefit, the extension of President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s tenure by about one year. Legal experts make the point that either interpretation was possible in that instance, JRJ having made a provision he did not use because the JVP had set the country on fire in its second adventure. While CBK would have liked to exploit that provision, the court upheld the national interest rather than that of an individual. A consummate politician, Mahinda Rajapaksa, unlike S.B. Dissanayake, knows how to choose his words when he makes public utterances, whatever the message he wishes to deliver. Thus he made clear that ``we’’ (meaning the government) respect judgments of the courts although some may cause us future difficulty.

Last week, the president met his prime minister and the leader of the opposition to discuss the non-implementation of the 17th amendment to the constitution providing for the appointment of a constitutional council. That was, of course, after some prodding by the supreme court. It is clear that the president is not keen on the constitutional council limiting his choice of making key appointments. He therefore opted for the device of awaiting a parliamentary select committee report on necessary changes to the 17th amendment in a months-long foot dragging exercise. Hopefully the deadlock is being broken and there were whispers yesterday that appointments to the constitutional council may even be announced as early as this week. Civil society did some useful enabling work to get the various sectors empowered to make the nominations sink their differences to get the council up and running. The whole country must be grateful for this endeavour.

The mere existence of various bodies like a constitutional council does not necessary guarantee the best appointments or even good appointments to sensitive positions. We have a parliamentary select committee that must approve appointments to senior government positions including those of ambassadors and high commissioners to represent this country abroad. Despite the existence of this oversight body, how many rank bad appointments have been made over the years? We recently saw a high commissioner who is over 80-years of age sent to Ottawa. In a feeble attempt to defend such appointments, about which an article appears in today’s issue of this newspaper, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama argued that such non-career diplomatic appointments were of people who had excelled in their own chosen careers. Why then did they not remain in those careers, it may be asked. The minister has brazenly appointed his own kith and kin to diplomatic posts. He has been roundly faulted for this but the fact that he has been permitted by the president to make such appointments has not drawn the same flak.

The parliamentary opposition, represented in the high posts select committee, has abjectly failed in making this oversight body a vigorous entity. It has too often acted as a mere rubber stamp approving questionable appointments. Various supporters of governments, not only in this country but elsewhere too, have cheques to cash with those elected to high office for helping to get them there. President-elect Obama is facing such a problem in the US right now. It is up to the opposition to keep governments in line, both in the legislative chamber as well as at the parliamentary oversight committees. They are paid by the taxpayer to do that. However mutual back scratching is all too evident in many of these bodies. Also, governments that are faulted have plenty of ammunition to throw back at opposition critics guilty of the same crimes of commission and omission during their own tenure.