Terminating entitlements of former Presidents: Politics supersede convention

By passing the Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Bill, the NPP Government was able to fulfil one of its signature promises to the electorate during the national-level elections in 2024. Subsequent to the legislative action, benefits such as the provision of an official residence or monthly allowance for former Presidents or their widows, monthly secretarial allowances, and official transport facilities are withdrawn.

The initiative by the administration is highly politically popular and resonates well with a society like Sri Lanka where feelings of resentment towards people with lavish lifestyles run deep. However, for civilised individuals, taking away entitlements given to former heads of state, some of whom are spending the sunset years of their lives, could be seen as an uncultured act devoid of class and grace.

During the parliamentary debate of the Bill, Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara stated that countries like the UK, India and the US provide certain privileges to their former presidents and prime ministers; as such individuals provide some form of service to the country even after they retire. But he lamented that ex-presidents in Sri Lanka spend their time plotting to recapture power even after the end of their terms. Perhaps, Nanayakkara might not be aware of the comebacks of Malaysia’s former Premier Mahathir Mohamad and the return of Donald Trump to the White House last year.

The Government disclosed only Rs. 98.5 million was spent on ex-presidents and their widows in 2024, which is a very negligible portion of the total government expenditure. For decades, the JVP/NPP politicians have politicised the benefits afforded to public representatives who hold obligations. Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that politicians of power and responsibility everywhere in the world are given various physical and human resources to diligently execute their tasks. As long as those resources are used to carry out their duties, without being misused, no right-minded person would raise objections. It must be borne in mind that heads of state and prime ministers make considerable sacrifices while in charge. They do not have routine eight-hour work schedules like office workers and sometimes have to spend sleepless nights on instances of national disasters/crises and conflicts. Very few appreciate the amount of physical and mental stress they have to undergo while governing sovereign states without having much time to spend with their loved ones. In the Sri Lankan context, one premier and president was assassinated while in office and Chandrika Kumaratunga lost one eye as a result of a failed assassination attempt on her by the LTTE. Hence, one might argue that former presidents and prime ministers deserve a reasonable amount of benefits once they end their stints in consideration of the tremendous sacrifices they make during their political careers. Terminating benefits when most of the former Sri Lankan presidents are either octogenarians or septuagenarians with numerous health issues also raises moral and ethical concerns.

Granting facilities and financial assistance to former presidents and premiers is observed worldwide, and it is not confined to Sri Lanka. In the US, former presidents are provided with a wide range of comforts from taxpayers’ money, including a pension as well as allowances for office space, equipment, staff, travel, entertainment and supplies. Further, all former American presidents and their spouses get lifetime Secret Service protection unless they decline. Even in India, outgoing presidents and premiers are offered a host of benefits such as rent-free accommodation, a monthly pension, a secretarial staff, free highest-class travel by rail or air.

In any civilised society, former leaders are looked after by the State in compliance with generally accepted conventions and customs of dignity and decorum, and there is no reason for Sri Lanka to be an exception to the norm.