Features

King Donald and the executive presidency

Published

1 year ago

2025/04/27

Donald Trump

“…Cicero’s tongue will have to be torn out, Copernicus’s eyes gouged out, and Shakespeare stoned. That is my system.” Dostoyevsky (The Possessed)

In 1787, Louis XVI summoned the Paris Parliament to approve a loan for his financially struggling government. The Parliament refused its consent on the grounds that only the nation, represented by the Estates General, could authorise new taxes or loans. Louis ordered the edict approving the loan be transcribed in the Parliament’s register. The Duke of Orleans objected saying this would be illegal. “The king replied that everything he did was legal” (The Revolutionary Temper: Paris, 1748-1789 – Robert Darnton).

In 2013, Mahinda Rajapaksa impeached a chief justice for refusing to give a pass to an anti-constitutional piece of legislation. In 2020, Gotabaya Rajapaksa said that his verbal orders should be considered as circulars. But even critics of presidentialism regarded monarchical presidents as a Rajapaksa, Lankan or a Third World malaise. That the United States, with its long established institutional, legal, and procedural guardrails, was an exception to this rule was regarded by one and all as an incontrovertible fact.

In 2025 those comforting delusions are crumbling as Donald Trump rides roughshod over vital American institutions from the Harvard University to the supreme court, insisting that his will overrides every other law, tradition, and consideration. Executive presidency’s vulnerability to authoritarianism can no longer be explained away as a Rajapaksa, Sri Lankan or third-world problem. It’s a weakness deeply embedded in the blood, bones, and sinews of the system itself which places a single individual (elected or not) at the apex and centre of power.

The first pushback against JR Jayewardene’s 1971 proposal for an executive presidential system came not from the SLFP or the left, but from within the UNP. Dudley Senanayake, a man less blinded by ambition and less wedded to power than most Lankan leaders before or since, pointed out, in remarkably prescient language, the unsuitability of an executive presidency for Ceylon in 1971: “The presidential system has worked in the United States where it was the result of a special historic situation. it worked in France for the same reasons. But for Ceylon, it would be disastrous. It would create a tradition of Caesarism. It would concentrate power in a leader and undermine the parliament and the structure of the political parties” (Daily Mirror – 8.10.1971 – quoted in JR Jayewardene of Sri Lanka – KM de Silva and Howard Wriggins).

Mr. Senanayake was dead right about Ceylon/Sri Lanka, but wrong in his sanguinity about the United States. In 2025, Donald Trump celebrated his administration decision to terminate federal approval for New York’s pricing programme by writing on his social platform Truth Social, “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan and all of New York is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING.” When a fallible individual is placed at the head of the state and government, the danger of that individual seeing himself/herself as an uncrowned monarch is innate to the system itself (not to mention human mentality). The potential may remain dormant for a long time, but non realisation doesn’t mean non-existence.

As the United States and the world are finding out with King Donald I.

Democratic Penguins Republic

A monarchy is as good, bad or mad as the monarch. This is true of the executive presidency as well. When Maithripala Sirisena unleashed confusion and mayhem on the country with his anti-constitutional coup of 26 October 2018, satirical website News Curry responded with a tweet – “Sales of Marijuana, Cocaine and Ecstasy stall as drug users demand something stronger. Please give us whatever…President Sirisena is smoking,’ said several druggies.” Gotabaya Rajapaksa was so non compos mentis, he turned governance into a theatre of absurdity to which nothing insane was alien.

Now Donald Trump is following suit, busting the myth of American exceptionalism with one insane measure after another.

In the course of his tariff rampage, President Trump slammed 10% taxes on some strange places. Like Jan Mayen island, a small volcanic landmass with no people and lots of polar bears; and the Heard Island and the McDonald Island, both volcanic and both inhabited only by penguins. A You Tube video which went viral captures the absurdity of Trump-economics. Nettled by the unfair tariffs, the hitherto peaceful and retiring penguins of the McDonald Island form an army to wage war on the US. “…an orange hand reached out in shame – and now the world shall learn our name… They taxed our fish they asked for more – we answer tariff with total war” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ8qGOe2K0o).

It is relatively easier to remove a prime minister who crosses the line too often and/or too much. But impeaching a president is a near-impossibility. As Dr Colvin R de Silva warned, “The procedure provided for the removal of a President by Parliament is so cumbersome and prolix…we can be ruled by a mad President for quite a time” (https://www.cpalanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Reforming-Presidentialism-27.pdf). Sri Lanka had to suffer under Gotabaya Rajapaksa until he pushed the country into bankruptcy. Donald Trump may do the same – or worse – to the US in the three and a half years remaining to him.

Executive presidency creates a network of patronage which, like monarchy, is centred around an individual. The president becomes the ultimate source of reward and punishment. The Rajapaksas, for instance, used presidential powers to heap largess on acolytes and persecute opponents, often breaking laws and violating norms. Donald Trump too is creating a “brazenly transactional ecosystem…which rewards flattery and lockstep loyalty,” Antonia Hitchens writes. “Recently, a group of prominent Republicans and members of the first Trump Administration signed an open letter comparing the President to a ‘royal despot.’ The insult, however, may not have landed with Trump, who, on February 19th, posted ‘LONG LIVE THE KING,’ referring to himself. But praise for a king often comes, at least in part, from a sense of fear over the power he wields. ‘We are all afraid,’ Lisa Murkowski, the Republican senator from Alaska, said last week… ‘I’ll tell you, I’m often-times very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real’ (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/28/how-trump-worship-took-hold-in-washington).

JR Jayewardene introduced the presidential system as part of an overall plan with three main objectives, wrote his biographers, KM de Silva and Howard Wriggins: “political reconstruction and democratic revival; economic regeneration; and a constructive accommodation of minority interest, especially those of the estranged Tamil community” (JR Jayewardene of Sri Lanka). These three objectives fell by the wayside early in the Jayewardene presidency. Democratic backsliding reached its nadir with the postponement of the general election through a manifestly unfree and unfair referendum in 1982. The economy fell victim to political upheavals; growth had plummeted by the end of the Jayewardene presidency. Instead of accommodating minority interests, the depredations against minorities reached a new high, and a small scale insurgency grew into a fully-fledged war. (Incidentally, the opening up of the economy took place before the presidential system was introduced while the Indo-Lanka Accord was the result of Indian pressure. Neither of these positive developments resulted from the presidential system.)

During its lifespan of nearly 47 years, Lankan presidency has undermined democracy, created instability, and institutionalised corruption and unforgivable inefficiency. Not to mention political chaos and institutional disintegration as presidents cling to the invisible crown and would-be-presidents jostle to wrest it.

The Forever Ring

In 2010, Sumanadasa Abeygunawardane, the man hailed as ‘royal astrologer’ predicted that the Rajapaksas would rule the country for the next 50 years: “President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Rajapaksas will rule this country for a long time…. The Rajapaksas will become beloved leaders of this country…. The next chapter in Sri Lanka is reserved for the Rajapaksas” (Silumina – 7.6.2009). Three months later, Mahinda Rajapaksa brought in the 18^th Amendment removing presidential term limits, paving the way for him to contest the presidency again and again.

In 2025, Donald Trump’s online store is selling merchandise emblazoned Trump 2028. These include T-shirts in navy and red priced at $38 reading Trump 2028 (Rewrite the Rules). The Rules mentioned here doubtless refer to the 22^nd Amendment which limits American presidents to two (consecutive or non-consecutive terms). Changing this ‘Rule’ requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the Congress and three-fourth majorities in all state legislature – an impossibly tall order.

Yet, President Trump is considering a third term, as he stated in an interview with NBC; asked whether he was joking he said, “No, I’m not joking.” Questioned about the impossibility of amending the 22^nd Amendment, Steve Bannon’s answer was, “There are methods of doing it” (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-is-not-joking-about-third-presidential-term-2025-03-30/). Mr. Trump’s 2020 attempt to gain a second term unconstitutionally led to an armed insurgency against the Congress and the Senate. What chaos results from any attempt to bypass or ignore the 22^nd Amendment remains to be seen.

In JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the main protagonist is the hobbit Frodo Baggins to whom the One Ring is entrusted. When he first looks carefully at the Ring, it “appeared plain and smooth, without mark or device he could see. The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful its colour, how perfect its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he had intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found now that he could not do so…” The Ring had begun to possess his mind, addling it with desire.

Like Maithripala Sirisena. On 21 November 2014, having walked out of the Rajapaksa government and accepted the mantle of common presidential candidate, he addressed a media conference telling the nation what he would do if he elected. The first item on his agenda was the abolition of the executive presidency which he eviscerated as a political and moral calamity, and a crucible of injustice. “We came to a clear decision with the UNP to abolish the executive presidency,” he stated. “I ask the people to give me power to abolish the executive presidency in 100 days.”

There’s no reason to think he wasn’t sincere, at that moment. When the 19^th Amendment was being discussed in 2015, he wanted to limit his presidential term to four years. The same man soon developed a taste for the presidential One Ring, tried to extend his first term from five to six years, and pushed the country into a mire of chaos simply to win Rajapaksa backing for a second term.

The JVP has opposed the executive presidency from the beginning. Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the NPP promised to abolish it, if elected. Yet, there’s not even a whiff of a coming constitutional transformation. What is indubitable is that Anura Kumara Dissanayake is enjoying being the president, acting the president. He doesn’t look as if he wants to destroy this One Ring by throwing it into the Crack of Doom.

During the presidential election campaign, the NPP/JVP carried out a superlative advertising blitz to market its candidate to a still undecided electorate. Presidential systems focus on individuals rather than parties, organisations or movements. This focus carries with it the danger of birthing personality cults. Signs of such a cult around President Dissanayake are already visible. He has become the government’s main attraction, its problem-solver-in-chief; a saviour in-the-making.

Until he became the president, Mr Dissanayake remained first among equals within the JVP. Now, thanks to the power and the glamour of the presidency, he is elevated way beyond that position of rough equality. He is the Ring-bearer and he seems to enjoying that primacy to the fullest.

The keeper of the One Ring never gives it up, Gandalf the mage warns Frodo; he only plays with that idea. So every previous promise to abolish the executive presidency was broken. Will Anura Kumara Dissanayake go where none of his predecessors did, and fulfil his pledge to end the presidency? Or will he do a Mahinda Rajapaksa, a Maithripala Sirisena, or a Ranil Wickremesinghe and stake the future of the country (and his own party) for another presidential term?

by Tisaranee Gunasekara

All News Advertisement

Features

‘There are no private universities in Sri Lanka’ – some considerations for higher education reform

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Academics involved in education policy like to say that there is no such thing as a private university in Sri Lanka. The only ‘universities’ in the country are state universities; anything else offering degrees is a private higher education institution (HEI). This position is technically accurate. Yet, in the discourse and imagination of the public, private universities are very real – people teach in them, students register in them, families pay fees, and such degree holders enter job markets in Sri Lanka and outside.

For decades, activists concerned for public higher education have ignored or resisted looking at private HEIs, as if such scrutiny would taint them. Others have worked in both types of institutions, carrying practices from each to the other. The apex body governing state universities, the UGC, has, meanwhile, ignored the concept of conflict of interest and appointed individuals in private higher education in committees and leadership positions. It is unsurprising then that some of the ideologies informing private higher education appear in reform agendas in the state sector.

This is a good time then to consider the varying types of private HEIs around us, and to take a look at some of the issues within them in the hope that higher education reform agendas will include private, as well as state higher education.

What is a ‘private university’?

First, some clarifications. In the public imaginary, a ‘private university’ is typically an institution that provides a foreign or local degree for which the student makes a payment. But this broad classification encompasses a host of diverse institutions and types of degrees which I detail below.

The Non-State Higher Education Division (NSHE) of the Ministry of Education has recognised 295 degrees by 32 institutions. Most of these are private companies and include a handful of established, well-known private HEIs that are ‘university like’. The degrees are local degrees conferred by the institutions accredited by the NSHE Division. While private HEIs conferring local degrees must be accredited by the NSHE Division, there appears to be no legal consequence for not doing so. In addition, there are several permutations of the private degree that miss the net of this Division and the Standing Committee on Accreditation and Quality Assurance (SCAQA) that assists this Division.

For one, degrees conferred by foreign universities offered, via these same private HEIs, are not vetted by the NSHE Division. Secondly, there is a growing plethora of private HEIs which have either no physical presence locally or only a dubious presence. The University Grants Commission has notified the public, through their website, that foreign universities listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook and the World Higher Education Database are recognised, but refrained from giving any other details – which degrees? Offered by what modes? These details are not known. Some of the foreign universities in the lists may be legitimate entities in their own land but the degrees conferred locally, in their name, may not adhere to curriculum or teaching specifications of the NSHE Division or the UGC.

Another troubling phenomenon is the ‘top up degree’, which appears to work on the same principle as that of a pre-paid mobile connection: if I have a Diploma or an HND of a sort, I am eligible to complete a course of study which provides me with a degree, usually from a foreign university. The idea that someone who does not initially qualify for a degree programme should be able to work their way towards one is a progressive notion. This is the concept that open and distance learning (ODL) was based on initially, but which is now sadly exploited. ODL models are expected to provide opportunity for learning for those who may be excluded from traditional learning institutions. In Sri Lanka, however, we have seen ODL become a marketplace offering easy to obtain, for-fee qualifications by institutions with little commitment to superior teaching and learning.

Finally, a perusal of the many types of private HEIs and their varied degrees bring to mind another question – how should the private degrees, provided by state institutions (that are not educational institutions), be regulated? Who should do so?

All of these create a host of problems for the public – for hopeful students and parents and trusting employers. For the higher education sector, recruitment of academic staff, too, has become difficult due to this plethora of ambiguous higher education qualifications, as I discussed in a previous Kuppi article (‘Recruiting academics to state universities’).

Some issues in private HEIs – a bellwether for change in state universities

In this second part of this article, I will discuss some aspects of work in private HEIs – albeit the more established institutions – given that such issues may appear in reform agendas in future.

Across state universities, all permanent staff of a specific category are paid according to the same criteria. The picture is not so clear when it comes to private HEIs since they are different entities legally, typically companies. Private HEIs have salary scales and financial incentives that are different to each other. The more established private HEIs reportedly have attractive renumeration packages, possibly a reason for academics of state universities migrating eagerly to such institutions during sabbatical years and on retirement. This may not of course be the case with other less established, or improperly registered HEIs of which we know little. Academic staff of these more accepted private HEIs seem to value the high financial remuneration they receive (in comparison to state universities) as something that makes their work rewarding.

Attractive remuneration is important to sustain the good life and is at times seen as the institution’s way of encouraging good work. Yet, this has implications for the future of the institution: to continue to deliver on promised financial packages, institutions must continue to have large profit margins. One strategy has been to enroll multiple cohorts of students per year, even up to three or four intakes per year. This can result in exploitative work conditions, since staff must cater to all these cohorts in that same year. If there is inadequate staff, employees are further burdened. On the other hand, if there is a sudden drop in enrolments (degrees can go out of fashion) unexpected layoffs occur. Similar to other sectors that employ short-term contract staff – including state universities – in private HEIs, too, individual teachers, who are on short term contracts that need regular renewal, can feel pressured to work under difficult or exploitative conditions.

At the same time, even in the more established private HEIs, work norms differ from those of state universities in that they include promotional work that keeps the institution’s name in the eye of the public. The Marketing (or similarly named) unit comes up in conversations as one of the most important departments. It appears to weigh in on decision-making related to the number of staff, the amount of re-sits per exams, and other pedagogically important matters. This is a worrying example of how financial rationales interfere with pedagogically or academically sound processes, resulting in problematic results in the classroom. On the plus side, junior colleagues, who had experience in both state and private HEIs, also felt that they faced less harassment in private HEIs – primarily due to the private HEIs ability to take swift action in reported cases of harassment. This is a real indictment on state institutions and their reluctance to address chronic issues of harassment in our universities.

Yet, while we hear much about problems in state universities, we hardly hear of problems that staff in private HEIs face. One rationale for a lack of public expressions by staff is that expressions of discontent might lead to trouble given the importance of reputation for private HEIs. The worry about reputational damage is a growing concern in state universities, too, as evidenced by social media policies and internal conversations on reputational damage, consequent to negative publicity. Institutional worries of reputational damage are harmful in the long run since these impact not only freedom of expression by student and staff, but also research that is possible in and about the education sector.

Some thoughts at the end…

A close look at the private higher education sector is important given its strong presence in the country. Impending reform needs to regulate this diverse array of higher education offerings in the private sector, as well as the state institutions that offer privately-funded options of higher education (a topic for a separate Kuppi on its own). It is time we carefully considered how to build a whole system of higher education out of this broken mess.

Kaushalya Perera is a senior lecturer at the University of Colombo.

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Ready for solo spotlight

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Nish Peiris: Excited about future plans

Singer Nish Peiris is set to take the next big step in her music journey.

The talented vocalist, who has been seen and heard in the scene here for a short while, and was also featured with the now-defunct band, Inner Vision, has announced that she will be fully committing to her solo career, after completing her degree this year.

“I’m finishing my degree this year, and after that I’ll be fully committing to my solo music career,” Nish told The Island.

“I’ve already got a few tours lined up for next year, so I’m really excited for what’s ahead.”

Fans, no doubt, will remember Nish for her smooth voice and stage presence, and the good news is that she is now ready to chart her own path and bring new music to audiences at home and abroad.

With tours already planned for 2027, the year 2026 promises to be an exciting year for the young artiste as she steps into the spotlight on her own.

We wish Nish every success in this new chapter!

Features

Exclusive musical evening for Sri Lankans in Toronto

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/21

Thilina Walpola

Toronto Ceymphony Live Band, with Sri Lankans doing the needful

While Sri Lankan music lovers, in Dubai, are eagerly looking forward to being a part of the action on Saturday, 25th July, with Rajiv Sebastian in the limelight, Sri Lankans, in Toronto, Canada, are equally excited and are anxiously awaiting the arrival of Sri Lanka’s famous singer/entertainer Sohan Weerasinghe.

Having done the needful with The X-Periments, the legendary performer has now embarked on an exciting new chapter – a solo career – and Toronto, Canada, will see him do the needful, on Friday, 31st July, 2026, from 8.00 pm to 12.00 am, at the Angus Glen Golf Club.

Sohan Weerasinghe: In Canada, and ready to do the needful on 31st July

Reports indicate that it’s a ‘sold out’ event – naturally with Sohan in the spotlight.

Gamini Hemalal: Creating all the excitement for Sri Lankans in Toronto

Having built his reputation through years of unforgettable performances, and hits that became part of our musical fabric, Sohan is ready to bring his own vision, sound, and stories directly to the audience, in Toronto, Canada, backed by the phenomenal Toronto Ceymphony Live Band.

Says Gamini Hemalal, who has been instrumental in reviving the Sri Lankan entertainment scene, in that part of the world:

“The countdown begins for the most exclusive musical event of the summer! Join us for a premium night of incredible music, elite hospitality, and a lavish buffet as the legendary Sohan Weerasinghe takes the stage live in Toronto!

“This is a high-end event, designed for those who appreciate exceptional entertainment and great food.”

Gamini, who is also a member of the Toronto Ceymphony Live Band, mentioned that it’s going to be an intimate musical evening with the celebrated Sohan Weerasinghe.

From packed auditoriums to intimate shows, Sohan continues to prove why he remains one of Sri Lanka’s most beloved entertainers.

For decades, Sohan Weerasinghe has been a household name in Sri Lankan entertainment.

Known for his captivating smooth voice and charismatic stage presence, Canada will experience it all on Friday, 31st July.

Next on the list of events, Gamini Hemal is working on, is Halloween night and he says “what we plan to do will be very interesting and unique … with a surprise guest star, as well!”