In September, Sri Lanka's parliament introduced Amendment 20 (20A) to the constitution, which overturned Amendment 19 passed in 2015 and restored the weakened presidential powers. On October 22, the case was passed. Perhaps, Sri Lanka's democracy is going back to the past era of dictatorship and authoritarianism. What's the difference between 19A and 20A 19A was promoted by the previous government in 2015, mainly to correct the 18A promoted by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the most important thing is to restore the limit on the number of presidential re-elections that was abolished by 18A, and to cancel the president's justice.
Immunity and ensure checks and photo background removing balances by limiting the president's ability to dissolve Congress only after his fourth and a half years in office. In addition, in view of the control of the judiciary by his family during Rajapaksa's administration, the Minister of Justice and the Inspector General of Police must retire after the age of 60, and the decision-making power of the President on some matters is distributed to various independent committees. , and guarantee the independence of government functions such as public services and elections. The passage of 19A is seen as an important step in Sri Lanka's democratic process. The current president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, attacked 19A during his campaign. It is advocated that although 19A aims to strengthen the separation of powers, the separation is unclear, resulting in the inability of the president, the prime minister, and the independent committees to integrate their opinions due to their individualism.
The differences of opinions cause the government to fail, and further lead to social instability. . So Gotabaya will repeal 19A as part of his campaign, seeking to restore power to the presidency. Inventory of the provisions of 20A, it can be found that the various restrictions on the power of the President have been greatly lifted. For example, the Audit and Procurement Committee was removed from the independent committee, which means that financial supervision may become ineffective, and it also means that the government's money (we can also say the people's money) is used above the reward. The possibilities are greatly increased.