1Fr (Dr) Oswald B. Firth OMI & Richard A. Dias
(b) Dr. Colvin R. de Silva

The other ardent advocate of this system had been none other than the redoubtable Dr. Colvin R. de Silva in the numerous presentations he had made at several seminars on Constitutional Reform organised by numerous NGOs, particularly the Council for Liberal Democracy (CLD). At the seminar on "Parliament: Its Powers, Functions and Roles" organised by the CLD, Dr. de Silva had stated that "the most important thing about the set-up [Donoughmore Constitution] was this. Those [Executive] Committees had tremendous power in the initiation of legislation. And secondly, in the supervision of the execution of the legislation, it was in the Committees that the Bills that ultimately came before the Board of Ministers and through it to the State Council, originated. There were various Departments under each of these Committees according to the subjects allocated to these Committees, and actually the Committees could meet again in the matter of the Executive tasks of the various Departments. That is, bring their influence to bear and take up those matters in the Committees and make their decisions to be carried out, so that the Ministers are not quite as free to use their powers [as they are today]. Finally, all these matters came through the Board of Ministers, as I said. What I wanted to stress was this: In those Committees there would come up matters which most closely concerned the people, for the simple reason that the people in those Committees were those who had been chosen by the people ... This brought the whole process of the Government in the country, aside from what the Governor was responsible for, into close relationship directly with the common people. Their wishes, their demands, their dislikes, all got reflected in these Committees precisely because the Committees had all the powers of legislation and also powers of Executive action being ensured". (Ideas for Constitutional Reform edited by the late Dr. Chanaka Amaratunga, published by CLD). Thus, a bottom-up approach giving credence to the democratic principle of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ was to some extent at least guaranteed.

In another presentation at another seminar on "The Presidency and the Institutional Form of the Sri Lankan State" also organised by the CLD, Dr de Silva, when referring to the Donoughmore Constitution, once again emphasized that "it carried with it a very valuable institution, Executive [Committee] system from which I think, if I say so to you, it was the major misfortune that we got away [from it], which may have been capable of improvement. And I firmly and personally believe that, had that system been carried over to the new stage of Constitutional changes [under the Soulbury and the two Republican Constitutions] keeping that form and basis, much of the problems of the minorities with regard to the participation in power at the Centre might have been, to some degree at least, assuaged and compensated for, even if it might not have fulfilled their requirements completely".

The sum and substance of these presentations was that: a) Governance vis-à-vis both the Legislative and the Executive, became a collective, interlinked exertion and the responsibility of all the legislators – and not only just those in power; b) It would have effectively curbed any authoritarian tendencies of the respective Ministers who would, otherwise, have been tempted to ride rough-shod over ordinary members, much to their chagrin; c) It enhanced the capacity to initiate a greater volume of legislation; d) It facilitated a closer relationship between the electors and the elected; and e) Above all, it sensitised the legislators regarding the problems of the minority communities with greater perspicacity.

(c) Mr. Dinesh Gunawardane

As stated earlier, it was left to Mr. Dinesh Gunawardane to go beyond the positions that had been taken by both Mr. Bandaranaike and Dr de Silva in his advocacy of the Executive Committee system when he made a strong case before the PSCCR that it should be an integral part not only of the Parliamentary set-up but also of all peripheral politico-administrative units right down to the District level as well (which in his opinion should be the basic unit of devolution). Whether one agrees or not with what the basic unit ought to be, this broad-based, all-inclusive, and multi-pronged approach would have facilitated the decision-making, policy-formulation cum power-sharing processes to be of more productive of results, both at the Centre and also at the periphery concurrently, thus encompassing the entirety of the country. This suggestion was truly a bold and innovative one with far-reaching consequences, the most significant of which would have been a much closer and intimate relationship between the grassroots level electors and their elected representatives together with their respective State functionaries. They would thus have not had much of an opportunity to shirk their responsibilities unless, of course, they were able to get their palms oiled (sic) in a clandestine manner, the way some of them do with impunity, as at present. It only goes to show that had there been such a more symbiotic relationship between them, as predicated by the Executive Committee system, such a malaise would not have come to pass at all.

The implied logic behind adopting the Executive Committee system at all levels of these politico administrative structures pre­supposes that, like peace, decision-making, policy-formulation cum power-sharing between those in power and those outside its pale should always remain indivisible. As such, if this incomparable democratic prerogative is to be confined only to the Parliamentary level, there would be a glaringly asymmetrical distribution of that privilege at all other levels of governance as well. This would be tantamount to committing an act of discrimination that would result in depriving almost the entire population of the country of its inalienable right of participating in this compacts as co-partners in the most intimate way possible. Such a facility would accrue to all and sundry a bountiful of benefits. Also, on the other hand, any such shortcoming made in this respect would have robbed it of its all-encompassing character that could turn out to be both counter-productive as well as self-defeating.

There, Mr. Gunawardane’s modus operandi had, therefore, been another type of a more holistic approach which deserved to be extended even to the Provincial Councils, Pradeshiya Sabhas, Municipalities, Urban and Town Councils and also the Village Committees-to-be as well. For, these are the graded, grass-roots level, people-oriented institutions where the day-to-day, innumerable, micro-level problems of the people could be closely felt and monitored, and, therefore, could then be effectively solved once-and-for-all. That would have been so different unlike now, when unscrupulous politicos and State functionaries at almost every level are very often inclined to quiver the pitch for their own shady advantage, but at what loss to the people whom they are obliged under oath to serve in a conscientious manner but do not, more due to this very institutional defect. The process governing decision-making today appears more to cater to the whims and fancies of the party and the politicians than respond to the needs of the people. This mix-up of priorities has, along the years, proved detrimental to the Sri Lankan polity in general and to the minorities in particular who have sometimes had recourse to even extra-judicial means to make their voice heard.

Also, such all-purpose sharing of a combination of powers through the Executive Committee system at all these levels, particularly within a political framework where all the three major communities live together, would have gone a long way in welding them together into a harmonious, wholesome and cohesive social-cultural entity. This is, however, a far cry from narrow, confrontational politicking which has been the order of the day since the broad-based Executive Committee system was replaced by its Cabinet-centred political counterpart. The institutional frailties found in the latter political set-up seems to have manifested within the ranks of whatever Opposition that had been in office with an all-consuming negative propensity on their part to oppose for the sake of opposing whatever that may emanate from the Government benches, come what may, both within or outside the precincts of the Parliament. This unhealthy tendency seems to have got percolated down to every stratum of our society which has virtually resulted in the saturation of collective psyche of the Sri Lankan people and her pluralist political culture with such an ill-gotten malady.

What more testimony in this regard is necessary other than the manner how the official Opposition under every dispensation has conducted itself throughout, ever since the Parliamentary form of government came into existence, with two adversarial camps on either side of the political divide conducting a sort of a puerile form of a cat-and-mouse game! This negative tendency came into sharp relief on 4th February this year once again at the last Independence Day celebrations, as it had always been so on all similar occasions since the day Sri Lanka received her Independence to-date, reducing this most significant national event to a seemingly partisan one. As such, has any leader who has belonged to any of the Opposition political parties of the day ever dared to join hands with whatever Government that has been in power, let alone deciding to be at least within a safely visible distance of the Galle Face green or at any other venue! Be rest assured, that this unhealthy and unwelcome trait will continue to persist ad lib, unless and until the overall framework of the present political structures and institutions are so adjusted that would incorporate at least some of the crucially important elements in the Donoughmore-type Executive Committee system.

(d) Professor G. L. Peiris

The most explicit treatment of this subject has been made to-date by Professor G. L. Peiris when he advanced no less than thirteen cogent and convincing reasons in favour of the adoption, at least a modified form of the Executive Committee system, details of which had appeared in the OPA Journal, Vo1.15, 1992-93 entitled "Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Problems: Lessons from the Donoughmore Constitution". In his opinion, "In the setting of Sri Lanka’s present constitutional problems, the Donoughmore Constitution, so far as the wielding of executive power is concerned, had two particularly valuable features", excerpts of which are reproduced below for want of space, to quote:

(i) In terms of the Donoughmore system, the legislature did not divest itself of executive power and surrender it to an extraneous body such as the Cabinet. On the contrary, the legislature by the expedience of constituting itself into a variety of Executive Committees, retained executive power in its own hands and used it effectively throughout the life of the legislature ...

(ii) In view of the excessive politicisation which is undoubtedly a grave problem in Sri Lanka today, we would place particular emphasis on the scope which the Donoughmore Constitution allowed for persons with differing political ideologies and points of view, and certainly not belonging to one political party, to make an active contribution to the formulation and implementation of executive policy ..."

Professor Peiris went on to assert that "if the central concern agitating us is the necessity for ensuring adequate control by the elected representatives of the people over the exercise of executive power – admittedly crucial in a modern welfare state – then we would suggest without hesitation that the following features of the Donoughmore Constitution, which is part of Sri Lanka’s constitutional heritage, deserve serious consideration", which is succinctly mentioned below in point form for want of space. Thus, the Executive Committee system:

(i) Enabled continuity and an intensity of involvement in executive policy on the part of the legislature, which is not realistically achievable under the Cabinet system of government;

(ii) Encouraged Members (of the State Council) to serve in any one of the Executive Committees of their own choice so that they could make an effective contributions regarding subjects they had a special knowledge and experience;

(iii) Enabled Members to acquire the right to exercise their supervision over government departments that fell within the purview of the respective Executive Committees to which they belonged;

(iv) Encouraged Members to secure a better grasp of administrative details, which was not certainly expected of them by the assumption of the Cabinet system;

(v) Rendered legislative scrutiny of government to be much more meaningful and productive to the recognition of distinct procedures in respect of the disparate functions of the legislative and executive roles of the legislature;

(vi) Gave ample scope to focus upon broad issues of legislative policy during the sessions because of the ample scope to focus on broad issues of legislative policy in legislature sessions;

(vii) Gave the legislature far greater leverage with regard to the control of public finance a function which goes to the very root of Parliamentary responsibility in the context of representative government;

(viii) Engendered a sense of intimacy due to the numerical smallness of the Executive that was conducive to greater frankness and candour;

(ix) Encouraged compromise and willingness to give and take during which all points of view tended to be taken into account before a decision was made, rendering the attainment of consensus was easier;

(x) Lent itself to the establishment of a viable consultative mechanism through which responses of the Members had a bearing on the final decisions that was arrived at;

(xi) Gave free rein to the ventilation of grievances which made it possible for tensions to be alleviated, and redress sought, before problems assumed alarming proportions. In this way a useful safety valve was provided.

(xii) Had special usefulness in relation to ethnic, religious and cultural diversity with the minority’s standpoint tending to receive greater consideration tending attitudes of confrontation to be avoided; and;

(xiii) Provided a significant impetus for the strengthening and development of a multi-party system which clearly would enrich public life in the setting of a multi-racial and multi-cultural community.

Some Positive Features

Although the views expressed by Dr. I. D. S. Weerawardane, Dr. Jane Russell and also the OPA could not be included here for want of space, this comprehensive overview of a variety of positive features inherent in the Executive Committee system provides convincing testimony of the need to re-incorporate this constitutional devise, not only at the Parliamentary level but also at the Provincial Council/Pradeshiya Sabha/Municipal/Urban/Town/Village Council levels as well.

Professor Peiris has also been sensitive to the fact that the Sri Lankan society has "changed a great deal during the intervening years" and as such, instead of any "uncritical and mechanical absorption into the constitutional law and practice of Sri Lanka, these attributes of the Donoughmore Constitution", he rightly asserted that certain relevant features relating to the Executive Committee system could be "imaginatively adapted and applied to contemporary conditions of Sri Lanka". In this regard, he pinpoints two particular areas that should be taken into serious account, namely "to exercise effective supervision and control over the executive (and) to draw divergent political perspectives and persuasions into vital areas of the government process so as to prevent unhealthy fragmentation of the community into warring groups activated by rancour and bitterness vis-à-vis their opponents".

Thus, his consistent stance underlines the benefits that would immensely accrue by the incorporation of these elements into the Constitution which are expected to provide lasting solutions to many an ill that afflicts Sri Lanka’s body politic since the time the Executive Committee system was replaced by the arbitrary, top-down Cabinet system. Implicit in his presentation was also a critique of the Cabinet system which, in his opinion, suffers from certain inherent structural, institutional cum functional infirmities and inadequacies that have rendered it ineffectual in the overall governance of the country by whatever government that had been in power.

Of particular relevance is the weightage Professor Peiris has given for the solution of the ethnic problem which had been mainly due to the sense of alienation felt by the minority communities from the mainstream of national life which, in his opinion, could be remedied by reconstituting the Executive Committee system because of the fact that "the minority standpoint tended to receive greater consideration". The shedding of much blood could have been spared and precious lives of thousands of innocent people saved had the above system been in place where legitimate grievances could have been addressed and needs adequately responded to at a level where people had direct access to their elected representatives. This would have also avoided the distancing between people and politician where the latter is more often than not seen only when election time comes around.

He seems to be having both the foresight and the hindsight not to blindly adopt this system lock, stock and barrel. For, many have been the occasions in the past where there had been several instances of dereliction of duty on the part of those who had wielded power under the Donoughmore Constitution as well. In fact, there had been some Members of the then State Council who had even contrived to manipulate it to their own advantage to further their own vested interests, which often reduced it to "a game of musical chairs" as to who should be in which Executive Committee so that their hidden agenda could be implemented! It had even led to a kind of an aberration in the form of the controversial Pan-Sinhala Board of Ministers in 1936, which according to Dr Jane Russell was: "The most significant and unfortunate result of the Pan­Sinhalese Ministry as it provided ample fuel for the Ceylon Tamil communalists …". However, these shortcomings could be traced more to the innate human frailties than institutional defects, which meant that the onus in respect of any such defaults rested more on the shoulders of those who had access to the levers and corridors of power than in the Executive Committee system itself. After all, aberrations due to human frailties need not spell the death knoll of the system itself, especially when, with the passage of time lessons can be learnt and defects rectified.

Whatever has been said and done, among the other reasons the following too could be adduced in favour of its re-adoption in a modified form of the Executive Committee system, thus:

(i) That it would enhance the participatory character of the decision-making the process of ALL the legislators, irrespective of whether they are in the Government or in the Opposition, and particularly those who represent the interests of the minority communities.

(ii) That there would be a more consensual approach when such decisions are being made, in contrast to the adversarial approach as at present which is abortive of positive results.

(iii) That to that extent, the sense of alienation felt by most backbenchers in both the Government and the Opposition will be reduced to the minimum.

(iv) That the decision-making process will cease to be the monopoly or the finally prerogative of the Cabinet of Ministers and the party in power, with scant attention being given to the views of legislators in the Opposition.

(v) That this would result in the present top-down imposition being substituted with the bottom-up approach that would give a sense of gratification to all the legislators participating in the proceedings of Parliament that they have all made their contributions in the formulation of most of the legislation.

(vi) That each and every Bill, Act or proposal would have been first subjected to a thorough evaluation by the members of the respective Executive Committees from a wide variety of perspectives before they are presented to Parliament for ratification. Such an intense give-and-take interaction done informally across the table with more candour than rancour would be in sharp contrast to the formal, lengthy ‘speechifications’ done while standing that more often than not produce more sound than sense, and generate more heat than light with vituperative epithets casts with gay abandon across the floor of the House to the discomfiture of those at the receiving end.

(vii) That the Executive Committee system be instrumental in evolving a vibrant political culture of mutual tolerance and respect for opposing viewpoints that is sadly conspicuous by their absence today. It would generate also a sense of conviviality, and also consultation, compromise and consensus.

(viii) That such a healthy relationship would have a benign impact on our social values and norms, and above all on the behavioural pattern of all segments of our society now so deeply fractured, and whose fissures are felt down to the grassroots family units. At least to certain degree it could help restore the cohesive, organic character of our rural society, where over 80% of our people live.

(ix) That, last but not the least, power-sharing in a meaningful way both at the Centre and also at the periphery would be a living reality, though yet an elusive dream – with concrete results that would give a sense of belongingness to ail communities, investing the devolutionary process with an added significance. In turn, this could ensure the territorial integrity of the country, provided other essential pre­conditions are also fulfilled.

It would, however, be too presumptuous if one were to repose faith exclusively in the Executive Committee system per se as the panacea for all the country’s political ills in particular. The very complexity of our problems today demands a multi­faceted and multi pronged approach if they are to be resolved without creating any more problems within more intractable problems. Sri Lanka can be viewed as a striking example where borrowed political systems from our colonial masters without adequate safeguards may have proved detrimental to the multi-ethnic character of our country. Borrowing models of governance from others may not per se be disastrous if properly adapted and adjusted to suit our particular needs and the peculiar character of those who are governed.

Concluding Remarks

In its final reckoning, the re-adoption of a re-furbished version of the Donoughmore-type Executive Committee system, as suggested above, would mark almost a complete break from the 61-year-old tradition since Independence of the Cabinet-centred Parliamentary form of government - whatever Government party and the official Opposition that have been in office since then. This rigid attitude, indeed, has got congealed in their respective strait-jacketed, adversarial and compartmentalized enclaves of relative frustration and isolation. They have thus remained, metaphorically and sometimes even literally, with daggers drawn on either side of the ‘Berlin Wall’ of their own making, with the Opposition being weighed down by a sense of hopeless resignation with hardly any brighter prospects in sight.

However, the rarest of rare occasions when attempts had been made to bring about, what approximated to be a sort of a bi-partisanship at least during electioneering time was when two unique initiatives were taken by both Mr. Karu Jayasuriya and Mr. Dallas Allahapperuma, during which the former contested the Colombo Municipal Council, and the Biyagama and Gampaha District elections, while the latter contested the Matara District. They neither put up posters nor campaigned all by themselves in their favour in order to obtaining as many preferential votes as possible. Those were the only four occasions when antagonistic, conflictual electioneering had been completely conspicuous by its absence. Instead, there had been a kind of non-confrontational, consensual politicking, at least on the election front, the paradox of it all been that both of them came on top in their respective preferential lists which seems to have spoken volumes, indeed. But that was to no avail as far as other spheres of political activities were concerned where the highly questionable status quo ante still prevails much to the disappointment of all civic-minded citizens.

Even if there were to be a change of fortune in favour at the next Parliamentary elections, the parties now in the Opposition may not feel inclined to deviate from this unhealthy tradition, however nauseating it may be, thus perpetuating it far into the distant future. Unless, of course, a radical transformation does take place particularly at least as far as the Cabinet-centred Parliamentary form of governance is concerned. Democracy under such a form of government, as a cynic once remarked, will continue to be the ‘dictatorship of the party in power until the next elections’! Quite a mouthful, indeed!!

Once such a reconstituted Executive Committee system gets off the ground, duly institutionalized, as an integral part of the political process at all levels of governance from the Centre to the periphery, its ripple effect would be felt far and wide in every nook and corner of the country with far­reaching beneficial consequences. For, such a radical change could induce the hitherto politically partisan and contending forces in and out of power, who are now in a perpetual state of conflict and confrontation, to interact with each other in a spirit of give-and-take, tolerance, mutual respect and harmony, the like of which has been in recent times more the exception that the rule. However, if this ever so elusive objective becomes a living reality, it could truly be said with pardonable pride that Sri Lanka at last has been able to attain that degree of political maturity her people could really be proud of. There is, no doubt, that such a change, wrought with so many possibilities, would go a long way in sustaining the oneness and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Under such circumstances, all the minority communities will also take exceptional pride in exclaiming, loud and clear, that they too are proud to identify themselves as fully-fledged Sri Lankans, not just half-baked ones, endowed with all the rights, status and opportunities to evolve their respective destinies in accordance with their own hopes and aspirations. Having experienced the tragedies of war and violence for so many years, Sri Lanka and her people deserve a better deal, a new all-inclusive political culture, which is not beyond her reach if only there is political determination and magnanimity to transcend petty partisan politics among our decision makers.