September 8, 2010, has joined February 4, 1948, and September 7, 1978, as a pivotal date in the democratic history of Sri Lanka. In 1948, Sri Lanka won independence from Britain, but in 1978, President J.R. Jayawardene and the United National Party (UNP) passed Sri Lanka's third Constitution, establishing expansive presidential powers. Now in 2010, with 161 votes, Parliament has passed a Constitutional Amendment further expanding the powers of President Mahinda Rajapaksa and stripping away the façade of democracy. Critics have dubbed September 8th "Black Wednesday."
The 18th Amendment will fundamentally transform Sri Lanka's political system, ending presidential term limits, eliminating the Constitutional Council that oversaw non-partisan appointments, increasing President Rajapaksa's control over appointments, and broadening the prerogative of the President to communicate with Parliament. Its effect will be to remove vital checks on Executive power and further undermine Sri Lanka's democracy.
Presidential term limits are critical to democratization. The concept of term limits for elected offices has been present in discussions of democracy since its earliest incarnations in Rome and Athens - both of which had term limits in some form. Without term limits, an individual and party may accumulate tremendous power. Incumbency advantages allow them to preserve and increase that power perpetually. The incumbent can rely on popular support, regime tactics, and opposition fragmentation to stay in office, setting the country's agenda ad infinitum.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate issue of an individual's accumulation of power over a lifetime and its use. As power becomes concentrated with a single individual and party, the range of views within the party decreases and opposition parties weaken and fragment, diminishing the representation of diverse views in democracy. The weakening of opposition parties also undermines electoral choice, leaving voters with few alternatives to the party in power. Government and politics stagnate.
Political party alternation, or turnover, is crucial to democracy. Political party alternation is more likely when the opposition faces a successor rather than incumbent, both because the successor does not enjoy incumbency advantages and because the opposition is more likely to unify when facing a new candidate.
Political party alternation is not just a symbol of democracy - it is essential to advancing democratization. Each successful turnover is a demonstration of democracy that increases legitimacy among domestic stakeholders and internationally. Awareness of the potential for turnover also makes officials and political parties more responsive to citizens and more likely to attempt to collaborate and reach consensus with other political parties. Following a turnover, the average improvement in Freedom House scores based on political rights and civil liberties among 20 electoral authoritarian regimes was 0.9 on a 7-point scale. By contrast, there was no improvement in these scores in the three years preceding government turnover in these countries.
In the absence of a Presidential term limit, corruption will grow within and outside of government. As an Executive and ruling party accumulate power, they become more likely to abuse that power. Parties are less vigilant in rooting out vice, and officials become more prone to corruption when they perceive little threat of removal or electoral repercussion. Without the potential for political turnover, businesses and other non-governmental actors have a greater incentive to invest in bribing and corrupting government officials, whose positions are more likely to be long-term and secure.
The end of term limits will reduce the potential for institution-building, policy reforms, and training integral to the development of stable democracy in Sri Lanka. Without each subsequent term, the incumbent feels less of an electoral imperative and becomes less likely to generate new platforms and policies or improve existing institutions and infrastructure. With a single party in power and little turnover among government employees and appointees, relatively few Sri Lankans will acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to become part of democratic government.
Presidential term limits are a fundamental feature of modern democracy. Although the United States' 22nd Amendment, limiting Presidents to two four-year terms, has only been around since 1951, it only codified the two-term limit US Presidents self-imposed -- from George Washington onward. (Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt served more than two terms.) The last of the major modern democracies to set term limits, France, did so in 2008.
Since the 1990s, and even earlier in some regions, the majority of transitional democracies and electoral authoritarian governments have also set term limits, although Sri Lanka is one of a number of countries that have revisited term limits in the past decade. Over the past few years, attempts to end term limits in Colombia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Ukraine, and Zambia have failed while countries that have overturned term limits include Algeria, Djibouti, Uganda, and Venezuela. Currently, Indonesia is debating term limits.
Political scientist Samuel Huntington proposed a "two turnover" rule: only after two successful political turnovers could a democracy be declared consolidated--or stable. By passing the 18th Amendment, Sri Lanka is regressing, destroying what democratic framework is in place rather than improving it.
The legacy of the 18th Amendment will be the destabilization of the Sri Lankan political system and the decline of democratic tradition. Its effects will only grow with time. The Amendment removes essential limits on Executive power and cripples the Judiciary while reducing the independence and influence of the Parliament; further, it ensures political stagnancy and precludes democratic progress.
Follow Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rpbp
No surprise here. The Tamil community have been trying to tell us about this Sri Lankan President and the foreigners that help him, for so long now and no one gave them the time of day.
Where's Hil Clinton, Lanny Davis, the Aspen Institute, et al, when you need them??
Any one remember the Coup of the Honduras? Oh, not so long ago.... Yep this Century. 2009. Middle of the night, in PJs, and at gun point, kidnapped..... Ousted. Their President.
And he only wanted to have a Referendum to ask if he could!
Anyhow:
Democracy was invented for the World's masses. Not for the profit, the excess profiteering, of a small group. But here we are - Globalization & a Global Ruling Elite helpin each other do the needful against the lower classes.
All over, in one way or another, Democracy is quietly and incrementally being dismantled, reduced to the basic, token, level that the Elites, local and/or international, can get away with.
Please continue to keep us informed about this country.
Thank you.
And G-d help the poor people of Sri Lanka.
Of course all things that increase the powers of the Executive should be viewed with suspicion - in Sri Lanka as anywhere else.
Beyond that, one sees with some wonder the religious zeal of Western democracies, and particularly the U.S., in promoting and expanding democracy all over the world. Is this not what the West has done with Christianity? We used to go to war in the name of Christ: now we do it in the name of democracy. There is a degree of messianism in the West which I think the world could do very well without. Do not misunderstand me: I think Western democracy is great. It is quite possible, however, that I would think differently if I were Chinese: China may not even be able to survive under a Western democratic system. Let them do their own thing: their civilization is much older than ours.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Rajapaksa is taking advantage of the fact that he is now perceived as the hero who ended terrorism, and is seizing power in leaps and bounds. Ministers are
being threatened and bribed into voting for Rajapaksa's amendment. Sadly, Sri Lanka has become a banana republic.
We need more posts from Buckwalter-Poza.
They artificially reduce the accountability of those in office (no need to try and keep the support for more than the time it takes to be elected to your last term), they undercut the very foundation of democracy (the idea that the people's judgement can be trusted) and they also stifle the internal debates within parties (it is hard to be too partisan within your party if you need to reach out to those dissatisfied on the other wing of your party to knock of the sitting President/Prime Minister who is planning on another run that is likely to lose your party that position)
Yes you need a series of checks and balances to keep the boss in check, but term limits are a very crude and imprecise tool.
An average citizen serving for a few years is truely a representative of the people. Have enough of these, and they will average out into representing the country. A professional politician serving for decades is not representative of us, not accountable to us, and not for us. Those long termers are there primarily to enrich themselves and pass their power on to their children. That is not democracy, it is a series of mini-monarchies.
When the personal performance/contribution of your politician is less important than the banner he flies under, there is little room for turnover, and all term limits will do is put the power even more firmly in the hands of the party machinery. At least without term limits, the incumbent can have the ability to not strictly toe the party line, especially after a couple of terms, because the party would face difficulty in getting him out of his slot.
You've pointed out some of the strongest arguments against term limits. With regard to the the "lame duck" issue, it seems the relationship of the Executive to his or her party has to be the safeguard against disregard for popular support. As to how limits restrict electoral choice by eliminating a candidate, there is the issue of what most undermines electoral choice in practice: where an Executive accumulates and maintains power, the results are the preclusion of an alternative candidacy within the party and a gradually weakening opposition (see Maltz ref. above), plus fewer potential successors being trained and emerging without turnover.
There are strong arguments on both sides. My argument that term limits are necessary rests primarily on evidence from democracy in practice rather than ideal democracy. Term limits are one of a number of policies that are concessions to the fact that men and women are not angels.