In the 31 years that we have had the Second Republican Constitution, no aspect of it has generated so much hot air as the "Executive Presidency". Everybody criticizes it, two Presidents were elected to office pledging to abolish it, yet it is still there, its provisions untouched by the seventeen amendments that have thus far been made to the 1978 Constitution.

During that time Parliament has passed amendments that altered the voting system from a purely proportional representation system to one that accommodates a voter’s candidate preferences; we have, at least on paper, given parity of status to the Sinhala and Tamil languages; we have devolved power to the Provincial Councils through the Thirteenth Amendment; and attempted, through the Seventeenth Amendment, to de-politicize appointments to high public office. But the executive presidency remains untouched.

The simple fact is that the Presidency as it operates in this country is about the most powerful and unaccountable elected office on this planet. Hence the demands to abolish or modify it only emanate from politicians when their party is out of power. Once a politician actually has the executive presidency in his or her hands, there is a tendency to sing a different tune. So far the only President to voluntarily eschew a second term has been D.B.Wijetunga, who was thrust into the post following the sudden and unexpected assassination of Ranasinghe Premadasa.

Now sections of the Opposition have put forward the idea of a directly elected "Executive Prime Minister" said to be based on the Israeli model. Unfortunately the public has not been told that the Israelis themselves discarded that system after a mere six years.

In some ways, looking at the Israeli political system is not irrelevant to our situation. The State of Israel came into being in the same year that this country regained its independence, and both initially adopted the British or "Westminster" model of government. Both societies have known war and political violence, albeit for different reasons. The people of both countries tend to hold their armed forces in high esteem and their politicians in relatively low esteem.

However the State of Israel, like Britain and New Zealand, does not have a complete written constitution. Its Constitution even today is to be discerned from certain "Basic Laws" that lay down the foundations of the system of government and the rights of the individual. Interpretations by the Supreme Court are also of significance.

This makes the situation in that country quite different from Sri Lanka where successive constitutions have been getting ever longer: The Soulbury Constitution contained 92 articles, the First Republican Constitution of 1971 contained 134, and the Second Republican Constitution it its original form contained 170, with more having been added through its seventeen amendments.

The other significant difference between the two countries under study is that Israel has an electoral system that is fully proportional, i.e. the voter has just one vote which he casts for the party of his choice. In Sri Lanka such a system was introduced with the 1978 Constitution but was altered significantly before it could be tried out.

Today we have a preferential voting system in which candidates of the same party compete against each other, even while the political parties also compete to get the highest number of seats. According to most observers, this system has increased intra-party rivalry to violent levels and exacerbated caste and communal rivalries. The Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform that heard representations from the public a few years ago, found that it was widely disliked.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy consisting of legislative, executive and judicial branches. Its legislature is known as the Knesset, the "Cabinet of Ministers" forms the executive, and the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by law. As such, the Israeli system is very much in the Westminster mode.

The Head of State is the President who is elected by a simple majority of the Knesset from among candidates nominated on the basis of their personal stature and lifelong contribution to the State. The President is expected to symbolize the nation and to be above and beyond party politics. His duties are mostly of a ceremonial nature but include also the decision as to which member of the Knesset shall be called upon to form a government after an election. Such person becomes the Prime Minister.

Given that elections are by proportional representation which seldom gives any party an outright majority, this has to be a carefully balanced political decision. The Member called upon to form the Government is required to do so and win a vote of confidence in the Knesset within 28 days. Coalition governments have been the norm.

According to Professor of Constitutional Law, Suzie Navot, writing for the prestigious Kluwer Law International, towards the end of the 1980s there was an increasing sense of dissatisfaction among the Israeli public at what they saw as the political stalemate on issues of security and the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This led to an initiative to amend the Basic Law relating to the Government, with the aim of introducing direct elections for the office of Prime Minister.

The initiative was launched a few days after a "National Unity Government" was brought down in a vote of no confidence. There were public protests against the entire system, while a number of Knesset members crossed the floor, apparently in return for political gain. The Government became dependent on political deserters and small Orthodox parties which obtained power disproportionate to their size. This political ferment eventually gave rise to an amendment providing for direct elections for the post of Prime Minister.

Thus far, the story may sound quite familiar to Sri Lankan readers. However the Amendment that was made to the Israeli Basic Law was not found to be a solution to the problem.

The "Direct Elections Law" introduced two-ballot voting, one for the party and one for the prime ministerial candidate. Its aim was to make Israeli democracy more representative and reduce the disproportionate power enjoyed by small parties and individual Knesset members.

Under this system three elections were carried out in the space of five years: Two dual elections for parliament and Prime Minister, and a third election for the post of Prime Minister only, after Ehud Barak resigned and sought a fresh mandate following the failure of the Camp David peace talks in 2001.

The fact that elections had become more frequent under this Direct Elections Law, and had in fact increased the power of small parties, was seen as sufficient reason to do away with it thereafter. Today the State of Israel has substantially reverted to its former system which can be described as the Westminster system with proportional representation. The executive arm of the Israeli government is officially described as the "Cabinet of Ministers" and not the Prime Minister who is simply "primus inter pares" like his Westminster counterpart.

All this still leaves the executive presidency untouched, but a truly independent Parliament, responsive and responsible to the electorate, could be the most effective check on that institution. It is in fact only Parliament that can lawfully curb the powers of the Executive President, whose own powers do not allow him to block an Act of Parliament to amend the Constitution if a sufficient number of parliamentarians are like minded enough to pass it.