The promise that never comes true

The executive presidency, as it stands, concentrates a significant amount of power in one office

In Sri Lanka, there is one promise that keeps coming back during every election. It is the promise to abolish the executive presidency. It is repeated with confidence, with conviction, and with great appeal to the public. Yet, once the election is over and power is secured, that promise quietly fades away.

This pattern is not new. It has happened again and again, across different leaders and different governments. And today, people are beginning to ask a simple question. Why does this promise keep being made if there is no real intention to keep it?

When Maithripala Sirisena came to power in 2015, abolishing the executive presidency was one of his main promises. It was presented as a necessary step to restore democracy and reduce the concentration of power in one individual. At the time, many Sri Lankans believed him. They were tired of excessive authority being placed in the hands of one leader. They wanted change.

To his credit, some reforms were introduced through the 19th Amendment, which reduced certain powers of the presidency. But the system itself was never fully abolished. The executive presidency remained, only slightly weakened. The promise that had been so strongly made was never fully delivered.

Years later, the same promise resurfaced. Ranil Wickremesinghe also spoke about the need to move away from an all-powerful presidency. During times of political uncertainty and economic crisis, there was renewed discussion about constitutional reform. The idea of abolishing the executive presidency once again became part of the national conversation.

Now, we are seeing the same situation unfold once more. During his campaign, Anura Kumara Dissanayake spoke strongly about abolishing the executive presidency. His message resonated with many voters, especially those who were frustrated with traditional politics and repeated failures of governance. The idea of change once again captured public imagination.

However, after coming into power, the message has shifted. The government now says that abolishing the executive presidency is not a priority at this moment. There are other issues to focus on, they say. Economic recovery, stability, and governance reforms are given as reasons to delay such a major constitutional change.

But this raises a serious concern. If it is not a priority now, when will it ever be? And if every leader says the same thing once in power, does this promise have any real meaning left?

The truth is, the promise to abolish the executive presidency has become a powerful election tool. It appeals to voters who are tired of abuse of power. It gives hope for a more balanced and democratic system. But once that hope serves its purpose and elections are won, it is quietly set aside.

This repeated cycle damages public trust. People begin to feel misled. They begin to question whether any major promise made during campaigns can be taken seriously. Over time, this creates a sense of frustration and even apathy among voters.

Sri Lanka has faced many challenges over the years, from economic crises to political instability. Strong leadership is important, but so is accountability. The executive presidency, as it stands, concentrates a significant amount of power in one office. This is why so many leaders have wwwpromised to abolish it in the first place.

But making that promise without the intention or courage to follow through only makes matters worse.

If abolishing the executive presidency is truly not practical at this moment, then leaders must be honest about it from the beginning. They must explain clearly why it cannot be done and what alternatives they propose. What the country does not need is another repeated promise that fades away after elections.

Sri Lankans are not asking for perfection. They are asking for honesty. They are asking for consistency between what is said before an election and what is done after.

The question now is simple. Will this cycle continue, or will a future leader finally break it?

Until then, the promise to abolish the executive presidency risks becoming just another political slogan, one that is heard often, believed briefly, and forgotten soon after.