President Mahinda Rajapaksa is scheduled to give a definite word regarding elections at the SLFP Convention on Sunday, November 15, 2009. His announcement will put an end to speculation and we can expect more clarity in stand and companion where the key parties and players are concerned. Then begins, as we all know, the season of promises.

There are two elections ahead of us, the Parliamentary and Presidential. The latter is clearly the big prize and this is why most of the political speculation has surrounded the names of possible candidates, consequent implications and possible configuration of political forces.

The name that has emerged is of course ‘Sarath Fonseka’. He’s been touted by many as the man who could put up the best fight against the incumbent, President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Both the United National Party (UNP) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) have mentioned him as a likely ‘Common Candidate’ (CC). Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the UNP, has even stated that in the event that Fonseka wins the Presidency, he would be made Prime Minister. Wickremesinghe envisages that as result of a pre-election pact between Fonseka and the UNP-led United National Alliance (UNA), the executive presidency would be scrapped and those powers vested in the office of the Prime Minister.

Two things have to be understood here. First, Wickremesinghe is essentially saying that the single largest party in the country (well, at one point in history, yes) cannot field a candidate that can challenge Mahinda Rajapaksa. Indeed, he is saying, ‘I certainly cannot beat the man’. So he proposes a bizarre script: Sarath Fonseka contests, and if he wins, then he willingly steps down or does whatever it takes to divest himself of executive power so that his chum Wickremesinghe can rule the country. That’s fantasizing to the max, one might say.

Why should Fonseka, having risked his war-hero status by immersing himself in the putrid waters called ‘politics’ hand over the prize to someone else if he were to win? It is hard to believe that Wickremesinghe (a seasoned though unlucky politician admittedly with a poor track record as leader) believes that Fonseka or anyone else would play such a role to perfection. Wickremesinghe probably understands that if Fonseka wins, that would be the end of his, Wickremesinghe’s, political career. It is far more likely that after baiting Fonseka to jump into the political deep end, Wickremsinghe would announce that he wants to run too, hoping that Fonseka would split the nationalist vote (meaning of course that Wickremesinghe doesn’t see himself or the UNP/A as a ‘nationalist’ party/coalition).

As for Fonseka, it is strange that while the UNP and JVP and a lot of other people have more or less consecrated the man as the CC, he himself has kept mum. True, he resigned as Chief of Defence Staff, further buttressing speculation regarding his candidature, but being silent is not buying him any votes. He has, by his silence, made it impossible to make any capital of such an announcement.

Let’s leave all this aside because it is after all nothing more than comment on speculation. Let’s focus instead on ‘promises’.

Politicians are full of promises, this we know. It goes with the job. One really can’t contest an election with a one word manifesto, ‘power’. Pages and pages have to be written, printed and distributed among the voting population laying out grand plans for alleviating poverty, reducing unemployment, building infrastructure and making the country kiriyen-peniyen overflow. And those parties who are languishing in the vale-vel-nethi position have to come up with a slogan to justify hanging on to someone else’s coattails, saatakaya or sari pota as has happened in previous elections.

This time, the preferred slogan has been ‘abolishing the executive presidency’. It is a neat trick. People need people, people use people, and some people have to make a case for bedding with people they’ve vilified for decades. Finding a common candidate to support is not easy, but there’s nothing easier than coming up with a common slogan to scream from the political platform. Abolishing the executive presidency fills the bill perfectly.

Promising is common. Easy. It is at the delivery end of things that people and promises are measured in the end. And with respect to the executive presidency, it is not only the problem of a lying politician that comes into play, but the constraints of the constitution.

Let us assume that Candidate X says he/she will abolish the executive presidency. Let’s assume he/she actually wins. He/she is first of convinced that there’s no one who can do a better job and realizes that to do what is ‘necessary’, power is a useful tool. Would Mr/Ms President willingly give up that which he/she sorely needs to execute his/her grand vision? I think not.

Let us assume however that President X is a lot more enlightened than his/her predecessors, that he/she is a rare individual, a citizen first and then a statesman/woman (not a politician). Let us assume that President X wants to abolish the executive presidency.

It cannot be done by pronouncement, he/she will soon realize. One can’t really ignore constitutional provisions unless one wishes to kick democracy in the gut. Being dictatorial to correct dictatorial legislation doesn’t sound right, does it?

No, the constitution will be referenced. What does the constitution say, though? Chapter XII, Article 82-83 clearly says that amendment (as such would be required for abolishing the executive presidency for instance) requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament and an endorsement by the people through a simple majority in a referendum. This means, that President X has to secure the support of 150 MPs to divest him/herself of executive power. The Proportional Representative (PR) system has made it next to impossible for any party or coalition to reach that magic number.

In a practical sense, given current animosities, if some President X wants to give up power so that Ranil Wickremesinghe or someone from the UNP can become executive Prime Minister, it is highly unlikely that MPs from other parties will vote ‘yes’ on such a proposal.

The logical thing then would be to amend the constitution so that the PR system is replaced by some other method of electing representatives. This too will require a two-thirds majority. In the current Parliament, that’s the last thing that the JVP will vote for. In a first-past-the-post system, the JVP will most likely be down to zero. Indeed such a system would make all small parties break out in a sweat. Take the biggest political parties, the SLFP and UNP. They are made of human beings, politicians who want power. MPs want to retain their seats and have a better chance under the PR system.

In short, the road from presidency to abolishing-the-presidency is a long one and moreover on either side of it there are political parties and members of parties armed and ready to stop whoever is brave enough to take a walk.

As I write, I am laughing at myself. These arguments, you see, make sense only if there was no such thing called ‘rhetoric’, only if we had statesmen/women and not politicians, only if those who aspire to power have demonstrated that they are not interested in power. No, it is all about POWER. Let us not fool ourselves to believing otherwise. So much then for these slogans and sloganeering about abolishing the executive president! I am if I am pricking someone’s hope-balloon, but this is how things are and we better be realistic.